Sears, Valentino, and "Symbolic Racism"

Query whether white Southerners might have a different perspective on this because of different material conditions. That is, if white Southern societies are less materially well off and, with reason, less hopeful about their own futures, might not they understandably wonder whether the problems African-Americans face are correctly attributed to race? Obviously, this is wild speculation. I guess the underlying question is whether the difference in outcomes for white Southerners and black Southerners--by some unknown metric--is smaller than in other regions.

"As I say, I think it's unduly inflammatory, for analytic purposes, to say that people who gave the conservative answers to these questions are "racists"

Yuperoo. I agree their terminology is badly modulated.

But, as I assume you'd agree, those answers strongly correlate with racism. And when you're looking at data, strong correlation is all you can ever ask for.

That just seems unnecessarily Orwellian to me. If there are people who believe (and are willing to tell a pollster that they believe) essentially that "black people are lazy," then it makes perfect sense to call them racists because, well, they are racist.

This reminds me of the truism that it is worse in politics to call someone a liar than to lie yourself. It's completely ridiculous.

"But, as I assume you'd agree, those answers strongly correlate with racism. And when you're looking at data, strong correlation is all you can ever ask for."

I'm not sure what's meant here. If you're saying that racists would tend to agree with these, yes; if you're saying that people who agree with these are racists, whoa! Racists would agree with these, but there are actually *black conservatives* out there who'd agree with them as well. Not all that many of them, as we know--but enough to warn us against jumping to conclusions about other people's racial views. What these attitudes bespeak is a hostility to environmental explanations for other people's problems and an insistence on personal responsibility for those problems--perfectly consistent with racist explanations of continuing black disability, but also consistent with plain-and-simple hostility to the notion that those disabilities are a social problem. I'm no conservative, but I know plenty of conservatives, and think they deserve a better break than to have their views automatically attributed to racism.

But, as I assume you'd agree, those answers strongly correlate with racism. And when you're looking at data, strong correlation is all you can ever ask for.

That would certainly be my guess, but it's also sort of tangential to what their research really shows here. The NES just doesn't have a question asking "do you hate black people" and if it did you presumably wouldn't get hyper-honest answers.

Racists would agree with these, but there are actually *black conservatives* out there who'd agree with them as well.

That really doesn't mean much. If you grow up in this society and you think you are just absolutely colorblind, don't have the slightest predispostion to attribute characteristics to people based on their appearance, you are just lying to yourself. This doesn't matter if you are white or black. What you can do, is realize all this is 99% horseshit and do your best not to let it effect your behavior.

If you don't and you feel the need to tell people that your little prejudices are justified you are just an asshole. You can call it "racial conservatism" or whatever you like, it means the same thing and I don't think your friends deserve any sort of break at all.

David, this doesn't speak directly to the racism view, but I think there's a big difference between "I/we will succeed if only I work hard enough; there aren't any important factors holding me down" and "He/they will succeed if only he works hard enough; there aren't any important factors holding me down." The first can be the positive attitude it takes to succeed: don't focus on the obstacles in your way, focus on what you can do about your situation. The second, if there are real factors in the way of his/their success, is obnoxious.

Analogy: Little Tommy's fourth-grade teacher doesn't much like him and is always trying to get under his skin and humiliate him, but if Little Tommy can ignore him and do well on his tests he'll get a good grade. What advice should you give Little Tommy? Tell him, "Just ignore the teacher; if you work hard you'll succeed." What advice should you give the principal? Certainly something different; what's important from the principal's perspective is not that Tommy can succeed despite what the teacher is doing to him, what's important is that the teacher is making it harder for Tommy to succeed.

So, for black conservatives (and sometimes not-so-conservatives) to downplay racism and to talk about how black people can succeed if they work hard can be a matter of emphasizing what black people ought to be doing to better their lot. For white conservatives to say the same thing, rather than thinking about what they can do about the very real social factors that make it harder for black people to succeed, is obnoxious.

Of course this all assumes that there are very real factors that make it harder for black people to succeed -- I mean, that "disagree" is the wrong answer to (2) and (4). I think that this is pretty unarguable, though.

just doesn't have a question asking "do you hate black people" and if it did you presumably wouldn't get hyper-honest answers.

I think that's involved with the changing connotations of the word racist and indeed with the process of the country slowly becoming less racist. People can play games with the definition of the word to rationalize their prejudices. To make it more accurate you might have to point out that what some really "hate" now is Afro-American culture, not "black people," that it's less tied to race as it used to be. If you ask someone with that prejudice whether they would hate Colin Powell or Condi Rice living next door, they could honestly say no. Southern white female fans of Oprah Winfrey might still run across the street if a black man is following them. They might not be bothered at all by an black with an British accent, etc.

I think I'm roughly w/AA. I'm not sure it makes a difference; I don't require that someone rub his hands, cackle, and explicitly plot to do evil before I'm willing to say he's bad for the country and ought to be opposed at every step. I doubt Krauthammner self-identifies as evil, but lack of self-knowledge doesn't seem like enough to absolve him.

I don't buy this "if you think black people as a group aren't systematically discriminated against in a way that makes it significantly harder to succeed, you're not a racist you're just a 'race conservative'" argument.

"Reasonable" people have always excused "moderate" racism while condemning "extreme" racism--and every bit of racial progress we've made is because we've decided that last year's "moderate" racism is now too extreme. Look at miscegenation--at one point, "reasonable" people strenuously defended it.

I think we have to be a little less credulous here, and take the "southern strategy" a little more seriously. Political appeals to racism have historically led the most destructive kind of politics in the US--the Civil War, white violence during the Civil Rights Movement, race riots, etc. It can have long-term economic effects: how much of "white flight," which nearly destroyed major US cities, was caused or exacerbated by racist political appeals, especially to whites?

While I understand it gets people's hackles up, I don't think the solution is to sugar-coat these results as "disagreements about race." This is not a polite disagreement. This is a bunch of white people who, for whatever reason, don't think it's a problem that black people aren't entitled to the sort of full participation in the US as they are. Historically, that's a problem in the US that has led to rather horrible consequences.

I don't buy this "if you think black people as a group aren't systematically discriminated against in a way that makes it significantly harder to succeed, you're not a racist you're just a 'race conservative'" argument.

"Reasonable" people have always excused "moderate" racism while condemning "extreme" racism--and every bit of racial progress we've made is because we've decided that last year's "moderate" racism is now too extreme. Look at miscegenation--at one point, "reasonable" people strenuously defended it.

I think we have to be a little less credulous here, and take the "southern strategy" a little more seriously. Political appeals to racism have historically led the most destructive kind of politics in the US--the Civil War, white violence during the Civil Rights Movement, race riots, etc. It can have long-term economic effects: how much of "white flight," which nearly destroyed major US cities, was caused or exacerbated by racist political appeals, especially to whites?

While I understand it gets people's hackles up, I don't think the solution is to sugar-coat these results as "disagreements about race." This is not a polite disagreement. This is a bunch of white people who, for whatever reason, don't think it's a problem that black people aren't entitled to the sort of full participation in the US as they are. Historically, that's a problem in the US that has led to rather horrible consequences.

It's probably futile to disentangle what is straight-up racist from what is quasi-racist and what is perfectly defensible in the attitudes of white southern voters. But what difference does it make? The point Perlstein, Schaller, et al, make is that, due to attitudes and resentments that are centered around race, it is futile for national Democratic candidates to try to compete in the deep South. That's all that really matters, and far as I can tell, the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of their view.

It's probably futile to disentangle what is straight-up racist from what is quasi-racist and what is perfectly defensible in the attitudes of white southern voters. But what difference does it make? The point Perlstein, Schaller, et al, make is that, due to attitudes and resentments that are centered around race, it is futile for national Democratic candidates to try to compete in the deep South. That's all that really matters, and far as I can tell, the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of their view.

I agree with that entirely.

I don't buy this "if you think black people as a group aren't systematically discriminated against in a way that makes it significantly harder to succeed, you're not a racist you're just a 'race conservative'" argument.

I don't especially buy it either, but see above. I think using the word "racist" in the context of Valentino and Sears' argument distracts attention from the point they're making about electoral politics.

i think i'm a symbolic racist. come to think of it, i've been accused of being a literal racist! but hey, when i glass houses....

Anonymous 4:31 pm

Look at miscegenation--at one point, "reasonable" people strenuously defended it.

I think reasonable people still defend misgenenation. Strenuously, even. If they know what it is.

Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: white people in the South have more day to day experience with blacks on average than white people in the North.

"Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: white people in the South have more day to day experience with blacks on average than white people in the North."

And thanks to Steve "junk DNA" Sailer for that textbook definition of real, not symbolic, racism.

Not to mention one that seems wildly counterintuitive. If this was the case you should see Urban whites in the north streaming to the Republican party and Rural northern whites trending democratic.

Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: white people in the South have more day to day experience with blacks on average than white people in the North.

Sailer, you're just assuming that. Moreover--if we're assuming away--poor white people are more likely to have experience with black people, and they vote the same way. Given the level of explanation, and the (fair, I think) assumption I've made above, isn't the simple explanation that Southern Republicans are a genetically evil people with a startlingly evil culture?

I should note that I don't actually believe that. Much.

So, what are we arguing about. People who answer the four questions (why is this black different from all other blacks...) tend to vote Republican. It doesn't matter if you want to call them Racist or not. Being Racist doesn't mean they support segregation. That's white of them. Being Racist, in these enlightened times, doesn't mean you support lynching, ANTI-miscegenation laws,separate drinking fountains, de jure segreation, it might mean that you are willing to accept lies about New Orleans, or the number of immigrants who kill each day or whether you need a diversity policy.

"(1) Irish, Italians, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without any special favors (agree)"

i think this is a badly worded statement. of course blacks should be equals without any favors. "should" denotes how it would be in a perfect world, does it not?

i guess i can see where they are going with this, to try and say that it is within blacks' power to overcome prejudice, rather than it should be within their power.

by the way, i wouldve given the opposite answer to whatever was in the parenthesis for each other statement, as those are all obviously racist. so that makes me think the study could be flawed.

Moreover--if we're assuming away--poor white people are more likely to have experience with black people, and they vote the same way. Given the level of explanation, and the (fair, I think) assumption I've made above, isn't the simple explanation that Southern Republicans are a genetically evil people with a startlingly evil culture?

Assumptions indeed. Your response would carry more merit if white people everywhere hadn't already voted with their feet by moving to less diverse neighborhoods. This holds true everywhere: white liberals in Salt Lake live in Federal Heights, the Avenues, Harvard-Yale, and Sugar House - incredibly non-diverse. Same with liberal whites in Boulder and liberal Jews in Manhattan.

The dynamics of why particular people choose particular parties goes far beyond race, but actually there are plenty of poor whites who vote for the GOP. Very poor whites don't, though, because they are a welfare class that likes gov't handouts.

What's more, Democrats can't demonize Southerners for the same reason Republicans don't demonize blacks - there are other groups who would get turned off by this. I'm a westerner, and I wouldn't be to keen on the idea. Democrats would lose votes in a lot more places than the South.

As regards to those race questions, if I answered in the same way about my own race as I did about blacks ("whites could do as well as Asians if they tried harder") would that make me racist against my own group?

This whole discussion goes to the heart of Democratic politics today. The assumption - pretty much automatic by those here - isn' that white Southerners have any legitimate beefs with the Democrats, but that Southern whites are just racists. This might be true if Republicans supported re-segregation, but that just plain isn't the case. They don't, and no white in their right mind thinks that the GOP will ever bring back segregation. The GOP does, however, address issues relating to black social problems that Southerners deal with everyday: higher crime, higher welfare dependency, family decay, and more behaviorial problems in schools. Democrats have answers to precisely none of these problems.

And that goes to the really big problem with the Dems: whereas they used to be a party that addressed the concerns of average Americans, today they are all about minority and victim status. They are obsessed with minority status.

Ed Marshall writes: "If this was the case you should see Urban whites in the north streaming to the Republican party?"

Which is exactly what you see in ultra-liberal NYC: white liberals have voted four elections in a row to make sure that the NYPD reports to a white Republican mayor. The Crown Heights pogrom of 1991 convinced the white liberal Democrats of NYC that they need to vote Republican to make sure that the police department is under white control.

Martel, every single thing that white Southerners want from the Democrats is bad. Race is the main indicator, but white Southerners have all kinds of baggage. If we can win without them, we should. ("We" meaning Democrats, not me and you).

The Republican Party has gone so Texan that ordinary people in the rest of the US (realignment or not) have gotten sick of them. Bloomberg is not a real (Texas-style) Republican -- NYC is still overwhelmingly Democratic in national politics.

Gee, as a New Yorker I'm quite shocked to see Steve Sailer not knowing what he's talking about. Bloomberg is a freaking lifelong Democrat who switched parties in 2001 to have an easier path to the general election.

The last few years, NYC Republicans running for Congress have tended not to advertise their political party in mailers, etc.

As I say, I think it's unduly inflammatory, for analytic purposes, to say that people who gave the conservative answers to these questions are "racists." At other points they use alternative terminology that simply lables the agree/disagree/agree/disagree suit "racial conservatism," which I think allows for calmer discussion of this.

Does anybody (particularly the paper) measure 'racism' outside the South (what is the South defined here as?)?

The problem (from the descriptions involved) with the book and the paper basically devolves to this: I can prove just about anything about anybody by grabbing a subset of poll questions and grinding some numbers.

I'd be curious to know (and sadly the NES does not measure this) is how many people in the North think that, say, Lenin is keen but Stalin fucked everything up (insted of Lenin being identified as a mass-murderer too!), and that we are inevitably marching to world socialism of some sort. (Feel free to tack on some other, similar, questions.)

I'd expect that agreement with that would be more popular in some coastal cities. I'd further expect that those in agreement with that position would support the Democratic party. Would it therefore be acceptable to say that the Democratic party is following an electoral strategy of appealing to wannabe mass-murderers (albeit, perhaps, sensitive, enviromentally-friendly mass-murderers)?

Obviously, I just loaded that sentence, but then, that's the point.

m, it's all in the definitions

Re: steve sailer
wtf? Have you ever been to a big, liberal northeastern city? There's tons of black people and all other racial minorities.

"Race is the main indicator, but white Southerners have all kinds of baggage."

And white Northerners, of course, have no baggage whatsoever.

"Yes, he's free to be put in a cage in Harlem in New York City,
And he's free to be put in a cage in Roxbury in Boston ..."

I just want to point out that if you use free market/libertarian responses to questions with respect to race to "prove" that conservatives are racists, you've taken your answer for granted.

I come out as 75-100% racist. 1)Gooks, Japs, Boche, the Hun, Micks, Wops, etc have all overcome similar if not identical oppression, some of these have overcome severe oppression that is more recent than Slavery (internment, for A), so "Michael Richards" can overcome them as well. (full disclosure: I'm half "Hun" and know that dealing with that during WWII and for the 2 decades after wasn't exactly easy, especially for kids. Heck it wasn't easy after WWI, especially for young immigrant families that only spoke German)

2) "Past few years" have been as close to parity as we are likely to get and almost all problems have been dealt with. Are there still problems? Yes, but at an individual/local level that happens with respect to most every social problem, rather than anything like the systematic social exploitation and oppression that was common across the country 30-50 years ago. But what does past few years mean. 2001-2006, or last 40?

3) There are cultural reasons for this, many directly caused by liberal social programs. Racialist politics also play a part. Now it mostly resembles the problem of any underclass, with negative attitudes towards "selling out" and not being true to your roots (you see this in poor rural communities, blue collar cities, and in the ghetto, whether it's acting "too white" or being all "citified". Tribalistic behaviour that comes from economics rather than race). Look at the movie "History Boys" and the general British Working Class (especially Chav) attitude towards anyone trying to educate themselves and move to middle class occupations/behaviours/attitudes.

4)Partly true, partly a product of the diseased culture produced in the projects. Compare the attitudes of the "Talented Tenth" and the Frederik Douglas types to current ones. What would those people have thought about current racial problems and politics?

It is very, very easy to get the "wrong answers" on all of these if you don't subscribe to "Liberal" (aka Leftist) public policy prescriptions in general and especially if you don't subscribe to "Liberal" racial policies (we're best served by race conscious programs for all eternity, "future time orientation" is a "white concept", quotas are necessary...). You'll need to bring a whole cartload of names to call me, cause I've been called them all, purely because I believe in Free People, Free Markets and REAL Free Speech. That's the real crime, and the way to get called every name in the book.

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

thanks

komik video
kurtlar vadisi pusu
aşk şiirleri
bol sohbet
cinsel sohbet
sohbet
sohbet yerleri
bedava oyun
Bol Sohbet
chat
chat
sohbet
sohbet
seviyeli sohbet
göçmen sohbet
mynet sohbet
islam sohbet
yazılı sohbet
yazgülü sohbet
hollanda sohbet
bg sohbet
dost sohbet
arkadaş sohbet
bayan arkadaş sohbet
kızlarla sohbet
avrupa sohbet
alem sohbet
sohpet sohbet
cinsel sohbet
ingiltere sohbet
liseli kizlar
msn nickler
saç ekimi
sağlık bilgisi
mirc inndir
film inndir

Ed Marshall writes: "If this was the case you should see Urban whites in the north streaming to the Republican party?"

Which is exactly what you see in ultra-liber

thanks

thank you

perde

jaluzi perde

stor perde

dikey perde

iso belgesi

iphone kılıfı

süper site

kozmetik

kolonyalı mendil

kolonyalı mendil

dolum

güvenlik kamerası

kamera

süper

sohbetim

joyturk tekstilkent joytürk mIRC Chat Video poşet imalat ambalaj paketleme iso güvenlik ıslak mendil

[link title="travesti"]www.escortlar.com[/link]
[link title="transseksuel"]www.escortlar.com[/link]

suggests a simpler explanation: white people in the South have more day to day experience with blacks on average than white people in the North."

And thanks to Steve "junk DNA" Sailer for that textbook definition of real, not symbolic, racism.

experience with blacks on average than white people in the North."

And thanks to Steve "junk DNA" Sailer for that textbook definition of real, not symbolic, racism.

That these imbalanced situations exist at all is one good reason to make IBC compliance a matter of law instead of guideline YESSSSS

Oyun
Oyunlar
Oyun
Oyunlar
Oyun
Oyunlar
Sinema
Sinema
Sinema
Video
Video
Video
Galeri
Galeri
Galeri
Resim
Resim
Resim
Canli Tv
Canli Tv
Canli Tv
Canli Tv
Resim
Galeri
Video
Sinema
Oyun
Oyun

I like very much the writings and pictures and explanations in your adress so I look forward to see your next writings. I congratulate you.

mirc

Thank you very much for this information.

muhabbet
muhabbet
mirc
evden eve nakliyat
sevgi
mirc
chat
chat
mirc
sohbet
kelebek

thank you site admin.

mirc yükle
mirc
mirc indir
mirc
mırç
mirç

Thankyou site admin.

thank you site admin..

I like very much the writings and pictures and explanations in your adress so I look forward to see your next writings. I congratulate you.

Thank you

thank you admin

hello

hello i lova admin

thank you very much
izlekop

seks shop

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset
izmir
karşiyaka
karsiyaka
forum
karsıyaka
sohbet

thank you :)

thank you