Race and Relevance

How many jobs are MORE DANGEROUS that Law Enforcement?

And in truth, John Stewart said it best:

Racism Part 2: What they don't teach you in school

Babies are racists. LOL - OK not really, but read #5 on that list. (From Cracked.)

The history of how White, Southern Racism shaped this country from the beginning. (From Kos.)

The Case for reparations. (From the Atlantic)

And Racism is still worse than we realize. (Cracked.)

Now lets examine the effect of the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

For this exercise I am going to focus on two geographic areas in particular: The SOUTHEAST, defined as Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia; and the NORTHEAST, defined as Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.  (For their parts, the MOUNTAIN STATES have always been Republican strongholds, and that hasn't changed. The MIDWEST has always been a contentious battleground and that hasn't changed. The PACIFIC STATES, with the exception of Alaska (which votes like a Mountain State) DID flip, from Republican to Democrat, but did so much later, in the 1990's, so they're not relevant to the discussion either.)

I am going to look at two time periods. The first starts in 1876 which was the first post-Civil War in which the Democrats were able to challenge the Republicans with a unified party and a single candidate.  It ends in 1960, the last Election before the passage of the Civil Rights Act. The second period begins with 1964 and goes through to the present day.  In this exercise I am looking the results of the States' PRESIDENTIAL Elections.  This oversimplifies a bit, but I spot-checked a few of the Southeastern States' Gubernatorial races once when a Tea Party friend of mine challenged it and the pattern held pretty solid on the states he had me check.  I may do Governors, Senators or Representatives one day, but for now let's just look at Presidential results.

From 1876 to 1960, the Southeast held 300 total Presidential Elections. This takes into account that North Carolina was not part of the Electoral College following the Civil War until 1908. In these 300 Elections, the DEMOCRATIC Candidate (Tilden, Hancock, Cleveland (3x), Bryan (3x), Parker, Wilson (2x), Cox, Davis, Smith, Roosevelt (4x), Truman, Steveson (2x) and Kennedy) won 255 of them.  That's a winning percentage of 85%.  So.. Pretty clear that the DEMOCRATS were strong in the Southeast following the Civil War and Prior too Civil Rights.

In the Northeast, in the same time period, there were 242 total Presidential Elections. In those, the same Democratic Candidates took home only 79 Victories, for a 32.6%  Winning Percentage.

NOW... Since the signing of the Civil Rights act, what has changed?

Well, since 1964, the Southeast has held 182 Presidential Elections. In that time, the Democratic Candidate (Johnson, Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton (2x), Gore and Obama (2x)) has won a mere 43 of these, dropping their winning percentage from 85% to a paltry 23.6% - a decline of 61.4%!  Meanwhile, of the 156 Presidential Elections held in the Northeast since the signing of the Civil Rights act, those same Democrats won 108 times. That's a 69.2% Winning percentage, up from 32.6% - a gain of 36.6%!  So clearly...

1) There has been significant ideological drift in both the Northeast and Southeast.

2) This shift is shown to have happened almost immediately after the signing of the Civil Rights act.

3) The Democratic Party (the one who's President SIGNED the Civil Rights Act) moved North, while the Republicans became the darlings of the Old Confederacy and Segregationist States.

A coupe of notes:

1) I counted DEMOCRATIC Victories, so that no one could call Bullshit if I tried to lump Independent such as Strom Thurmond or George Wallace in with the Republicans.  As it is, they were not counted. Also, if I was counting Republican victories, what do you call Teddy Roosevelt in 1912?  Seems wrong to count the Bull Moose Candidate, but it seems just as wrong to leave him out. So we'll use the Democratic performance to show the trend.

2) Surprisingly the biggest exception to the trend in the Southeast is actually NOT Florida: It's WEST VIRGINIA!  West Virginia has gone to the Democrat SEVEN TIMES since the signing of the Civil Rights act.  Florida has gone only five, and three other have gone four times. The STRONGEST Republican States since the signing of the Civil Rights act (in the Southeast) are Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Since 1964 a Democrat has only won ONCE in each of these States.

3) Prior to Barack Obama in 2008, the only Democrats to win ANY of the Southeastern States were themselves Southerners :Johnson, from Texas, Carter from Georgia and Clinton from Arkansas. (This was no help to Gore, of Tennessee, who failed to win any in 2000, though we won't discuss Florida.)

4) If you ignore the influence of NATIONAL LANDSLIDES, which say little about any one regions politics and more about the politics of THE DAY, the trend gets even more stark. If I remove the Four Franklin Roosevelt land slides on '32, '36, '40 and '44, the Johnson landslide of '64, the Nixon landslide of '72 and the Reagan landslide of '84, here's how it breaks down:

Southeast, 1876-1960: 244 Elections, 199 Democratic Victories, 81.6% Winning Pct.
Southeast, 1968-2012: 140 Elections, 34 Democratic Victories, 24.3% Winning Pct.

Northeast, 1876-1960: 198 Elections, 47 Democratic Victories, 23.7% Winning Pct.
Northeast, 1876-1960: 120 Elections, 93 Democratic Victories, 77.5% Winning Pct.

So they go down 57.3% in the Southeast, a little less than before, but go up 53.8% in the Northeast - a LOT more than before.

Take either methodology, as you prefer. AND, if you're going to make the argument that the Democrats are the REAL racists, you're going to have to explain THIS phenomenon away first, if you expect to be taken seriously. Robert Byrd or no Robert Byrd.

Now for something a bit lighter, here are Five Shockingly Racist Scenes in Famous Superhero Comics. (Cracked.)

Racism Part 1: The Law and Justice

Watch these three videos, if you can stomach it - they're pretty brutal...
(trigger warning, etc...)

The PUBLIC EXECUTION / POLICE MURDER of John Crawford III:


The DRIVE UP EXECUTION / POLICE MURDER of Tamir Rice:


The CHOKING THE LIFE OUT OF / POLICE MURDER of Eric Garner:


...And then contrast these to Steve Lohner...

...or the KID GLOVE handling of Joesph Houseman:


Seriously?! This obviously, openly, armed, angry, belligerent, RW asshole yells at the cops for almost 10- minutes strait?! Tamir Rice? John Crawford? The cops gunned them down, on sight, in under ONE SECOND.  And I'm supposed to believe that race doesn't play a factor?  I'm supposed to believe that these cops were acting appropriately?!  And then I'm supposed to believe the cop, and the lone, white, racist witness in the Michael Brown case?! BULLSHIT.  This is not only criminal, it's indefensible. The Grand Jury, in every case, didn't see that way, so fuck them.  The Prosecutors consistently shit-canned their own cases, so FUCK THEM.  Gerlado wants to tell me that BLACK PEOPLE are the problem? FUCK HIM. And if you can't recognize the problem here? THEN FUCK YOU.

And if you're still even thinking of telling what a threat these people were, let's not forget that they somehow made the effort to take THIS GUY alive:

James Holmes, remember him? Killed 12 people, was carrying a Shot Gun, a Semi-Automatic Rifle, a Hand gun and Tear Gas Grenades?  Imagine for a moment the mentality it must take to take the time, effort and risk to take this piece of shit alive, and yet the men above had to be put down like dogs in under a second.

Go ahead. Try to argue with me on this.  It's not a question of whether we have a police-state problem, or a race problem, it's only a question of how many people, black AND white (and every other color) need to DIE before something constructive is done about it.


And if you're still skeptical, how about some crushed testicles?

And before anyone wastes any of my time telling me that these are isolated incidents, here is a list of UNARMED Black Men killed by the police since 1999. (And from my own research for past posts, I can assure you that this is FAR from an exhaustive list.)

Oh, and let's not forget that nearly bottomless scum pit of a prosecutor who thought that an abused woman firing a warning shot at her abusive ex-boyfriend deserved SIXTY YEARS in prison for it.
Yeah. No problem with White Privilege or Male Privilege here, is there?  By all means, let's keep "standing our ground."

And even after all that, if you don't understand why they riot, especially in THEIR OWN neighborhoods? Well, THIS GUY explains it, and gives you different perspective on it.  It's his opinion and perspective, not mine, but the more I see of just how much we have a problem with racism in this country, the less inclined I am to judge ANY of these folks.

(And more on all this in my next post.)

(CORRECTION: In the video, I referred to JOSEPH Houseman as JOHN, and JAMES Holmes also as JOHN.  My apologies.)

(After all, the last time anyone saw JOHN Holmes in a theater, he was armed with something completely different.)

Racism follow-up

I want to follow up on someting from the "Doctor Laura" post. I noticed that I spent a lot of time focusing on treating people as individuals.  I want to clarify that this was in response to the "doctor" lumping the Black caller into her perception of the larger group / Blacks in general.  Putting aside that the "doctor" doesn't seem to think too highly of the group anyway, it was still very wrong of her to automatically lump this individual into a group before even trying to hear what she had to say or see her point of view.  HOWEVER... I did not want anyone reading that to think I was making any kind of endorsement of colorblindness.  I wrote a post awhile back regarding the inherent racism of colorblindness.

So... What's the answer?  Bottom line: Race is a complex issue, and there a rather considerable balancing act that needs to happen.  People are individuals, and should be treated as such, but the color of our skin (as well as our gender, religion, national origin, sexuality, etc...) affects the experiences we have, largely because they affect the way the world perceives (and responds to) us.

Consider this: If a White Man and a Black Man with otherwise similar backgrounds (economic, upbringing, education, religion, etc...) go to a party, meet the same people, drink the same liquor, dance to the same songs, play the same games... They do not leave the party having had the same experience.  And among other things (of course) the fact that one was black and one was white influences that.

If you don't see the party example as exemplary of this, consider the exact same two people at a Klan rally.

Still think the color of their skin doesn't affect the experience they have?

Don't stereotype, but don't IGNORE it either.  It's a delicate balancing act to be sure.  So proceed with care and caution and empathy.

Good riddance, Doctor Laura

It may not be very big of me, to celebrate the absolute laying low of another person, the complete destruction of a career, one that is ending in utter disgrace, but what happened this week to “Doctor” Laura Schlessinger couldn’t have happened to a more deserving person. Well, OK, maybe that’s not true… seeing as how Schlessinger is a has-been that hasn’t been politically relevant since the early 1990’s, I suppose I’d have rather it had be Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter… but I’ll take what I can get. One down, too many to count to go. Goodbye Laura, and good riddance to bad garbage

OK. Glad I got that out of the way. I said some other nasty things about her on MMFA (and you can hear the audio's of her over there) when the news first broke. Bottom line: I’ve never liked her. I’ve always found her to be mean spirited, bigoted and a religious nut – especially on issues related to sexuality and sexual orientation – and most importantly, at least to me, a screaming, FLAMING HYPOCRITE. Consider this: I call my mother AT LEAST once a week, and usually every couple of days. This great preacher of “family values” hadn’t spoken to her mother for 20 years prior to her death in 2002! I don’t need to hear someone preaching to me about “family values” who’s been estranged from her mother for 20 years, anymore than I do from someone who is thrice divorced with no kids!

*Exhale*

OK, rant over. Thanks for letting me get that out of my system. What I really wanted to do was share some of the comments that I left on MMFA about the racial controversy in general. I hadn’t started out trying to write anything profound, but they got a tremendously positive response, so I’d like to share them with everyone else as well, see what y’all think about it. (The following paraphrases several comments, but primarily comes from THIS ONE.)

The media has largely focused on the fact that she actually said the word, “Nigger.” (Like… eight times in a row!) And this is a shameful (and conservatively biased) ploy on the part of the media. Because in reality, saying, "nigger" was the LEAST of the problems with he broadcast that day, as well as her career, show and political philosophy in general!

Because the WORD isn't the problem. SHE IS. And focusing on the word whitewashes the fact that she felt it was the CALLER who had a hypersensitivity problem, as opposed to realizing that it was the caller’s husband's friends who had an IGNORANCE problem, and who showed a profound LACK of sensitivity. THIS is the REAL PROBLEM. She went so far as to tell the caller that if she was so sensitive about race issues that maybe she shouldn’t have married outside her rice! WTF is up with that?! When someone asks someone else (who's black) "Do black people like [something]?" and thinks that's an appropriate substitute for "Do YOU like something]?" It's racist! PERIOD. But the “Doctor” is apparently too ignorant, too stupid, too racist and way, way, WAAAAY to ARROGANT to ever realize this.

And while it may be a gross generalization on my part, Liberals aren't the ones who, when talking to a black person, lump them into the larger group. That IS however something that I see Conservatives do ALL THE TIME - such as Dr. Laura, Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, etc... Time and time again white people are just people, but black people are black people first. And this is inherently racist, even if you harbor no conscious ill will toward the group! Because it dehumanizes – de-INDIVIDUALIZES – the person, diminishing them to being just a token representative of a group. And that’s why I say that this focus on the word “nigger” is not only unfortunate, but conservatively biased. Because Conservatives seem to think that the have to actually HATE the group in order to be racist. That somehow, as long as you don’t CALL someone a “nigger” you can’t be saying something, or thinking something racist.

But it’s not about HATING the group. Actual, conscious hate is NOT at all required: Viewing someone as the member of a sub-group FIRST and an individual human being, fully deserving of respect, dignity and validation SECOND, is inherently racist (or bigoted in the case of religion, sexuality, etc…) even if you don’t harbor – or don’t THINK you harbor – any ill will towards the group.

As for the word itself? Personally, I refuse to say "n-word." The word is "nigger." We’re all adults here, and we should be putting it on a pedestal like that. But it's a word that should be treated the same way that PEOPLE should treated: With RESPECT. It has a long, sordid history and context matters. Black people can say it. That’s perfectly OK. Given the history of white's behavior, I'm happy to let them own it - to let them emasculate it by treating it like a term of endearment even. I don’t care. For my part, I have and would never call someone one, nor would I (or have I) ever refer to someone as one. Nor do I choose to deal with people as "blacks" as opposed to PEOPLE. INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE. And that's why I - and most liberals - can get a pass for merely SAYING the word. Because in the context of a frank discussion about race, we have a tendency to remember the history, and understand and VALIDATE the other person's feelings. But people like “Doctor” Laura, who generally tend blame the victims, demonstrating that, for all their polite-sounding diction, they really haven't evolved their thinking beyond the segregation-era, generally DON’T. They might not CALL someone a “nigger,” but they also have not demonstrated sufficient understand to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to context.

I think Keith Olbermann was right about what she was REALLY saying when she said that she that Obama's election signaling the end of racism, that we’ve moved beyond it. It's the same old question that came for Civil Right Act, The Voting Right Act, Brown v Board of Education, etc...: "Haven't we done enough for you people?"

And the answer (to those who would ask this) is, "NO." NO. Not until you stop treating people who you can categorize into subgroups as token representatives of that subgroup and start dealing with every person as an individual. And what’s more, an individual worthy of respect, dignity and validation! And definitely not until you realize that, when it comes to race, white people CAN, in fact, do wrong. That not ALL racism exists solely in the imaginations of black people, and Schlessinger is living proof of this, whether she realizes it or not.

Obama’s election was NEVER evidence that racism was gone. In fact, it’s brought out every last, ugly bit of evidence out there that racism is still alive and well. It’s not the SAME, obviously – we don’t go around CALLING people “niggers” anymore – but like any strong organism, it’s EVOLVED. It’s evolved to remain hidden and preserve itself in our viewpoints and our discourse.

President Obama, our first Black President, means the end of racism? It would be closer to the truth to say that more people have apparently taken it as a signal that racism is somehow OK to bring back out into the open again.

A Joke...

I've been writing a bit about stereotypes lately, so I fugured I shared this "racist" joke with y'all...
:)

HEAVEN is where:
The Cooks are French
The Cops are English
The Mechanics are German
The Lovers are Italian
and everything is organized by the Swiss.

HELL is where:
The Cooks are English
The Cops are German
The Mechanics are Franch
The Lovers are Swiss
and everything is organized by the Italians.

...or so it looks from insdie this great American melting pot! LOL.

Immigration Reform

Before I get into immigration reform, I just want to reference THIS PIECE from MMFA. It should dispel the idea, once and for all, that crime increase when the number of "illegals" does.  Make sure any Right-Winger who argues along those get s a good hard dose of the facts first!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are three basic reason to want immigration reform, if you're already an American Citizen: (1) Racism, Xenophobia and Religious Bigotry.  (2) Concerns about jobs.  Someone may also say, "and resources" but I'll explain why that's nonsense. (3) Concerns about security.

I shouldn't have to explain the bigotry angle, especially in light of my last two posts.  And it's not just Mexicans either.  How about those Muslims?  I've actually heard people say we shouldn't give them student visas!  In the words of Gorobei Katayama, "Are you kidding me?" How else do you expect the Middle East to progress and modernize and (dare we say it?) WESTERNIZE if they're young people are not given an opportunity to see first hand what the West and Modern Life has to offer?   But bigotry is not a motivation most people are willing to admit to.  So let;s give them the benefit of the doubt for now and I'll show you why this IS in fact the primary motivation.

The second reason is JOBS, and more specifically WAGES.  Now this is the one area where elements of the Left actually get on board.  Unions and Labor advocates would rather see these jobs pay higher, and go to American labor.  But the Left's opposition to immigration reform is relatively modest compared to the full-on rant-like fear mongering of the Right.  Which is funny, because it seems that this is about the only argument the Right EVER makes in favor of American Labor. Remember: Thea re the people who hate union, fight minimum age increase, outsource jobs to china, put profit ahead of safety (Massey, I'm looking at YOU!)  It seems the only time they give a shit about American Labor is when a Mexican comes looking for an opportunity to work hard, send his kids to school and make a better life for his family.  Seeing as how every WHITE person's family did that at one point, I'd say this is, at best, despicably hypocritical and at worst... well... see reason number one.

As for them 'draining our resources'?  Look: This cheap labor?  It IS a resource.  It's a resource that every single one of us benefits from.  Sure... we could force the farm owner to pay market wages for American Labor.  They'd pay several; times as much and it would certainly cut into their profits, even as it made the bulk of our produce skyrocket in price!  Would more Americans be employed?  Maybe.  And that can be good.  But does it really HELP if everything costs more and the industry that feeds us is no longer profitable?  Those people put food on your table.  You think you do, because you PAY for it? Cry me a river.  Without them there wouldn't be enough food to BUY.  At least until those good ol' market forces kicked in and drive the price high enough to justify the production and increase the supply.  And THEN you'd be complaining about how much it cost!  So rather than bitching about your kid sitting next a Mexican in the classroom (see reason #1) maybe you should try THANKING those people who busted their asses, getting paid shit, with no benefits, for helping YOU make a better life for YOURSELF.

Now the final reason might be the most principled one.  In a post 9/11 world (doesn't it seem like every Right-Wing argument starts out that way?) we can't risk having a loosey-goosey border because a terrorist could sneak in and steal our cheese.  Now... I can get behind that REASONING... But as most of you have figured out by now, I have kin of an upside-down way of looking at things and I draw a completely different conclusion from it. I say, "Let them [pretty much]  ALL in."  Here's why:

Consider what you need for security, especially knowing that we're talking about people who can just WALK here.  You need to know WHO they are, WHERE they are and you need the ability to do a BACKGROUND CHECK to look for... Terrorists, yes,  but also Drug Dealers, Fugitives, Bandidtos, etc... (Yeah, I'm kidding about the Bandidtos.)  And in order to GET this information, you need people to be WILLING to give it.  And if you keep telling people, "No, you can't come in" and "If we find you we'll you to jail or back to Mexico" then they have no reason to comply.  Especially since it's so hard to keep track of them  anyway!  So thank about the result of having a system that tries to keep people out (IOW: Panders to reason #1): In doing so, you INCREASE the opportunity for a terrorist to sneak in and hide amongst the millions of undocumented folks.

So what would I do?  Simple.  I let anyone in who passed a simple background check, provided they registered and kept us informed of their address.  I'd let them work, they'd pay taxes (as almost all do anyway) and Id let them make a life for themselves.  They can't vote, until they're citizens, but that's their choice.  As long as they obey the law?  I'd leave them be.

Who would I keep out?  Only convicted criminals, wonted men, people of the FBI's terror list, etc... Now, you might think that THESE people wouldn't bother to register.  Well, yeah, they probably wouldn't.  But if you have someone here, who's NOT in your database, who you CAN'T confirm the status off, they'd pretty much STAND OUT, at least as compared to now, where they're one of MILLIONS.  And under a system that GIVES THEM what they want, rather than tries to DENY THEM, I 9and most people) would have a lot less sympathy for those who break the rules. And hey: If every legitimate migrant worker is registered, you can bet far more confidently that the one dude that ISN'T really does have something to hide.  In any case, it would make the authorities jobs a LOT easier, if for no other reason than they have about 0.1% of their current caseload,, and THAT would make us more secure.

As for the background check?  Shoot.  They're not applying for security clearance.  It don;t take more than a few days to (1) confirm their identity, (2) Check for warrants and (3) Check for convictions.  Clean sheet? Come on in.  But we can only do those checks if people are WILLING to cooperate.  And there's no reason to expect them to if we make them wait for YEARS, and always tell them NO, and threaten to jail or deport them.  Not when then can just walk around.

If you really want to know the difference between reason 1 and reason 3, just ask yourself : Are we trying to keep out Muslim Terrorists or Migrant Farmhands.  It an both nearly impossible and completely unnecessary to TRULY secure our southern border and let NO ONE in.  Just ain't going to happen, and I don;t know why you'd want to.  Your taxes would go up to pay for it, and your grocery bill would go up because of it.  We only need to know WHO and WHERE people are.  And anyone who;'s NOT a terrorist or a drug-dealer will gladly tell you that, if you're helping them get what they want.


If anyone wants to argue these points, please review your argument against reason #1 before doing so. ;)

On Stereotypes

Following up my last post, I wanted to take the opportunity to explore stereotypes. Now, to some extent there is something in our DNA that causes us to instinctively fear that which is different. It’s ingrained in us, and it is unnatural for us to move beyond this. And I don’t believe this is God given – meaning that we were just made this way. I believe that the bulk of this fear is evolutionary. Back when human society more closely resembled the wild, the tribe that was welcoming would have been wiped out by the more aggressive, or more xenophobic tribe. Survival came from strength, and aggressiveness, rather than cooperation and sharing. And in that environment it, it behooves one who wearing the BLUE face-paint to be wary of the one wearing the RED face paint. (And don’t get me started on that other tribe, in the GREEN face-paint!) But now we’ve filled in most of the available space, and the maps don’t have any more blank spots left on them, to get along as a society, we cannot continue to live in this manner. Now we have to work together.


So why do these racist stereotypes persist? The way I see it, it’s a special form of Magical Thinking strongly reinforced by Confirmation Bias. Those links will connect you to arguably the BEST material available on those subjects, but I think my claim of ‘Magical Thinking’ might require some explanation.

First of all, ‘Magical Thinking’ is basically non-scientific causal reasoning. In other words: It’s where superstitions come from. Here’s a completely non-partisan example of what I talking about. My Das is an avid golfer. He also had a bad back, and occasionally this affects his game. For many years he swore by the medicinal (magical) power of wearing a copper bracelet. He swore this improved his game, and he had the data to back it up! He put on the bracelet… his game improved. He took it off… it got worse! How could I argue with that?! Well, I might cite the regressive fallacy. You see, chronic pain comes and goes. It gets worse, then it gets better, then it gets worse again. And it’s reasonable to conclude that when it’s BAD, it would affect your golf game. Now… ask yourself this: When are you MOST LIKELY to put that bracelet on? Probably after a few days of bad pain that have started to affect your game. And when would you be most likely to take it off? Probably when you’ve felt pretty good for a few days, and don’t have that nagging reminder in your back to put it back on. If you think about that for a moment, you’ll realize that when you have a condition that waxes and wanes, and you’re sort of being tricked here: You’ll try your magical solution when it’s bad, and then credit it for the inevitable improvement – one that would have happened anyway! And you’ll take it off, and then BLAME THAT for the pain inevitably coming back! Now, this same fallacy is why we have superstitions, religious ritual, alternative medicine, 'as seen on TV' products and any number of other bullshit things that people swear WORK.

So… how does this apply to racism? One of the most common arguments I hear, living in Southeast Michigan, is, “Just look at Detroit.” It's 98% Black, and they’ve ruined it! Now, I will grant you that there IS a connection between Detroit’s Blackness and its state of urban decline, but I hope that I don’t have to explain to most of you why this is not a simple, causal connection. The number of economic factors that lead (and are caused by) to urban decline, the relative impoverishment of minorities, white flight, crime, corruption, etc, etc… Are far too numerous to describe here. But white people left, black people moved in, and the place went to hell. What more proof do you need?!

Correlation is mistaken for causality all the time. And a justification for racist sentiment such as this one is no exception. The logic here is the same as with magical thinking, and it ignores every factor except our desire to blame all the world’s problems on that other tribe while exonerating our own. But it’s not superstitious thinking alone that perpetuates it. There’s also a heavy dose of confirmation bias.

This fallacy basically describes how we are far more likely to remember, and place far more value and emphasis upon, those incidents that reinforce what we already believe than those that contradict it. A man who thinks women are lousy drivers, for example, will remember every woman who ever cut him off, or paused when the light turned green, or lost her way and had to bang a euie, forget about every MAN who ever did the same, and feel that he has more than sufficient data to conclude that women are the inferior drivers. And no amount of auto-insurance industry data that shows that MEN make more at-fault accident claims than women will convince him that what he saw with his own eyes is somehow an incomplete picture. I’m sure you can find numerous parallel examples like this one that support SEXISM, but the same is true of RACISM.

How many people, when discussing immigration, will tell you about all the crimes that these ‘filthy, lazy, uneducated Mexicans, who come in here and drain all our resources’ have caused? Now… first of all, you already know that they’re filtering out most all crimes committed by whites from their minds. And if they DO acknowledge any 'white crimes,' they’ll still BLAME them on the influence of minorities. (After all: We had NO CRIME before all these damned Mexicans moved in, right?) It's like mixing coloreds and whites in the laundry: The whites just get more colored, the coloreds don't get more white now, do they? Now, one only has to consider what was going on in Boston and Chicago and New York in the early 20th centry, for example, back when these cities were almost completely white and yet riddled with violent crime and political corruption,  to realize just how much bullshit this conclusion really is. (And if you want to blame the (white) immigrants of the day, I’ll remind you that Tammany Hall was hardly staffed by anyone fresh off the boat!)

I discussed in my last post what my experience with Mexico and with Mexicans has been, and I’ll add that I’ve never worked with, or gotten to know a Black that I could respect and get along with either. And I’m not ignoring the crimes committed by minorities. I’m merely also not ignoring crimes committed by whites. Hey: Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay, and Jeff Skilling, and Goldmann-Sacks and Bernie Ebbers… THESE crimes are 100% White, and each has caused more harm to our country and our economy, and cost us more, than every crime ever committed by a Mexican or a Black in this country combined. But hey: They wear the BLUE face-paint instead of the RED face-paint, so they’re in OUR TRIBE. So it’s only natural that we forget about them, and forgive them, even though they’ve wiped out the life’s saving of millions of people, and the average Black or Mexican can only steal your car or what’s in your wallet. Wrong face paint? We’re just going to fear you more, and we're just more incluined to remember your crimes.

The other reason I think we are naturally drawn to negative stereotypes is our own fragile egos. We can’t stand the thought that we might be inferior in some way, any way, and so we slander the other in what amounts to a defense of our own egos. Mexican’s are lazy? Every one of the hundreds of Mexicans I’ve met make the average American look like a outright bum. And it’s not just negative stereotypes that work this way: Ostensibly positive ones work this way as well.

Take for example, ‘Asians are good at math.’ Well, I went to go to an 80% Asian high school, and I can tell you quite clearly that Asians are NOT ‘better at math’ (or science) on the whole, as a people than the Americans or Europeans are. Do you want to know why they get good grades in these subjects? THEY WORK GOD-DAMNED HARD FOR THEM! And that’s why ‘Asians are good at math’ is in fact a NEGATIVE stereotype: It deprives them of credit for the great effort they put into their studies, dismissing it instead as merely a genetic superiority. And we’d rather do THAT than just admit we’re lazy or try to match their work ethic. (And the more we see how hard we have to work to match them, the more we'd like to think - hope, relly - that they do have sort of genetic advantage.  Again: we'd rather make an excuse that admit defeat and give credit where it's due.

Also, one also has to realize that the average American only sees the BEST of what, say, China or Japan has to offer. Many Americans have gone to school with the son or daughter of a Asian-American engineer or businessman or entreprenuer. How many have met a typical Chinese subsistence farmer? And I’m not denigrating them either. There are plenty of illiterate, uneducated white people as well, right in this very country. Hey: Every country has their share of people like this.  But to claim that this is ALL that’s in say, Mexico, or to deny that there are any in Japan, is every bit as harmful and insulting to both groups, and to every individual within each group.

And I don’t want anyone to think I’m claiming to be any better here! I still check my door locks when a group of black people walk by my car. And I would still feel more comfortable if I was carrying a gun when I’m in Mexico. And as I’m not ignorant of the dangers that certain situations pose, I’m also not completely immune to the irrational thoughts that something comes with from those situations, into other areas of our lives. Also, I have to say that I LOVE IT when I catch a Japanese or German engineer (both of whom I've worked with in my career) really screw something up.  In my experience these groups both look down on American engineers, the way Americans look down on Mexican labor.  So I love it when they accidentally reveal a little bit of good old fashioned HUMANITY. You can call it schadenfreude, but I take it as a reminder that these people are not machines; that they are, in fact, perfectly imperfect HUMAN BEINGS.  And I’d love to say or think that I’m perfect, but I know the fact is that I’m not. The only advantage I have is that I realize this and that I want to be better than that.

For a more humorous take on stereotypes, please see Cracked.com's skewering of the five most statistically full of shit national stereotypes.

Two big political shifts, both having to do with Race

“I am the last President of the United States.” ~James Buchanan, after the secession of South Carolina. (He was wrong, but he’d be the last Democrat for 28 years to win an election!.)

"We have just lost the South for a generation." ~Lyndon Johnson, after signing the Civil Rights act. (Who would have thought he was actually being optimistic?!)


Historians sometimes break our political history down into 5 or 6 major chapters. The ‘first party system’ usually ends with the collapse of the Federalist Party. The ‘second party system’ ends with the collapse of the National-Republicans, and the change of the Democratic - Republican Party to the Democratic Party. The third system usually ends with the collapse of the Whigs. The fourth system is marked by the civil war, and the rise of the Republicans to National Prominence and a period of decline for the Democrats. After that it gets a little blurry. The ‘fifth party system’ usually starts with FDR and the New Deal and the Democrats return to prominence, and if so, the 6th party system started with the passing of Civil Rights, and the geographic shifts that ensued. Some may say that we are entering a 7th party system, I don’t really know, and only history will tell.

Personally I don’t care much about the collapse of the Federalists, National-Republicans or Whigs. I just see those events as one Conservative Party after another being torn apart by some of its members wanting to adapt and become more progressive while the rest insist on party purity and steadfastly cling to the old ways, alienating the progressives and dividing the moderates. Three times now this has led to the dissolution of the conservative party, followed by the eventual abandonment (or redefinition) of “the old ways.” This is inevitable because the world keeps moving on, with our without the Conservative’s consent. And we may finally be seeing History repeat itself yet again, as the Tea-Baggers tear the Republican party asunder like a pack of rabid, starving cannibals. But whatever. I don’t see the cyclic demise of each successive party of luddites to be anything particularly profound. The way I see it, there have been only two real game-changers in American Presidential politics, and the both largely involve RACE: The Civil War and Civil Rights. Here’s my ‘Cliff’s Notes’ version of American Presidential History that explains why.

The Federalists (F) started out well enough. George Washington twice ran unopposed and was probably the most popular President in American History. He warned against the formation of actual parties, but perhaps was being too optimistic regarding human nature. His Vice-President, John Adams (F), then carried the flag, but Adams, as great a founding father as he was, was no Washington when it came to the Presidency. He lost his bid for re-election and the Democratic-Republicans (henceforth referred to as just ‘Democrats’ or (D)) came into Prominence. Thomas Jefferson (D) won two terms, James Madison (D) won two terms and James Monroe (D) won two terms. (In the modern vernacular, the Score is now D-6, F-3.) In Monroe’s bid for reelection, he ran unopposed, as the Federalist party had by now utterly collapsed.

From their ashes came the National-Republicans, led by John Adams’ son, John Quincy Adams(NR). Now… technically he LOST the 3-way race for the next Presidency. Andrew Jackson (D) not only had more popular votes, but more ELECTORAL votes as well! But as he didn’t have a majority, so he was not declared the winner. Henry Clay then basically GAVE all of his votes to Adams (NR) in what has become known as the “corrupt bargain” and Adams won. It wouldn’t last however. As a President, Quincy Adams (NR) was not well liked, and he’d be the only National Republican to hold office. Jackson (D) went on to win twice, and his VP, Martin Van Buren (D) also won. Dem’s now lead 9 to 4.

Unfortunately, Van Buren’s Presidency was awful. And from the ashes of the now defunct National-Republican party came the Whigs. William Henry Harrison (W) beat Van Buren (D) but died three weeks after taking office. His term was served out by John Tyler (W). But Tyler was so bad, the Whigs wouldn’t let him run again. So James Polk (D) won a term, then retired and dies himself a month after his term ended. With no one ready to replace him, the Democrats lost to Zachary Taylor (W) who ALSO died in office (what’s with these sickly Whig Presidents?) and had his term finished out by Millard Fillmore. HE was so awful the Whig’s didn’t let HIM run again (What’s with these unpopular Whig VICE Presidents?) but lacking a suitable candidate, they went on to lose twice more, once to Franklin Pierce (D) and then to James Buchanan (D) and fell apart as a party.

At this point the Dem’s lead in election victories by a score of 12 to 6. Not only have there been two Democratic victories for every loss, but they’ve outlasted three separate opposition parties! Unfortunately Pierce (D) and Buchanan (D) were SO BAD that it was under their watchful eyes that the country begin to tear itself apart, and the groundwork was laid for the Civil War. Now… the reason this was such a game-changer was that the Democrats were more prominent in the South, while the newly formed Republicans, lead by Abraham Lincoln (R), and having grown from the ashes of the Federalists, National-Republicans and now Whigs, were more prominent in the North… who, of course, won the war. This was a game changer for our national politics BIG TIME. For the next half century or so the Republicans were all but untouchable: Lincoln (R) won two terms, Ulysses Grant (R) won two term, then Rutherford Hayes (R) followed by James Garfield (R), who was assassinated and had Arthur (R) finish his term. Grover Cleveland (D) managed to finally win a term for the Democrats, then lost to Benjamin Harrison (R), but then won a send term. MicKinley (R) then won two terms followed by Teddy Roosevelt (R) who finished MicKinley’s second term after he was assassinated, and won re-election in his own right. He was followed by his protégé and Vice President, William Taft (R). THAT was the political fallout after the Civil War: After leading 12 to 6 before the war, the Democrats trail 11 to 2 after it!

Woodrow Wilson (D) finally managed to win two consecutive terms, and was the first Democrat since Andrew Jackson to do so! But as I pointed out a couple of posts back, his first election was a bit of a fluke. He was then followed by Warren Harding (R), Calvin Coolidge (R) and Herbert Hoover (R). So for the ~90 years following the Civil War, the Republicans won the Presidency FOURTEEN TIMES to the Democrats’ four.

The great depression, however, broke the Republican’s winning streak: Four victories for Franklin Roosevelt (D), followed by one for Truman (D), two for Dwight Eisenhower (R), then one each for John Kennedy (D) and Lyndon Johnson (D). That’s an 8 to 2 run for the Democrats, but I actually don’t see the Great Depression or even the Second World War as a real game-changer. Some bad luck and one lousy president (Hoover) followed by the successes of Roosevelt and Truman did put the Democrats back on the map, but the main reason I don’t consider this much of a game changer in that from 1876 to 1964, the Republicans still dominated the in the North and the Democrats still Dominate in the south. The regional trends remained largely intact and do not start to shift in earnest until the 1960’s. The shifts actually start in 1960, and were fully visible by 1968, so I’m going to use 1964 as the dividing line. Because since 1964, the regional shift have been pronounced.

First, the Northeast and Southwest have practically flip-flopped. From 1860 to 1960, the Northeast (defined here as: Connecticut, Delaware, The District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont) voted Republican 69% of the time. Take out FDR’s four national landslides and that number grows to 77%. Take out the 1912 election, and the split Republican ballot, and it grows to 79% of the time. From 1964 through to today, these same states have voted Republican only 33% of the time. Take out Reagan’s ’84 landslide and Nixon’s ’72 landslide ad that number drops to just 23%. And, to be fair, if you than also then take out Johnson’s ’64 landslide, the number goes back up to 25%. So in elections that were actually competitively contested, the region went from going 79% Republican to 75% Democratic.

The Southeast saw the opposite trend. From 1860 to 1960, the Southeast (defined here as: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North , Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia) went to the (or “a”) Democratic Candidate 81% on the time. Even removing FDR’s four landslides, in which he won EVERY STATE in the region, FOUR YEARS IN A ROW, the Democrat STILL wins 77% of the time. Take out Wilson in ’12 and the States still go Democratic 76% of the time. From 1964 until today however, these states have gone to Democrats only 24% of the time. And other than Obama, who pulled out Flordia, North Carolina and Virginia, the ONLY Democrats to win any of these States in this period were Southerner themselves: Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton! Take out Johnson’s ’64 National Landslide and that number drops to 21%. Take out Reagan’84 and Nixon ’72, (both of whom won every state) and you’re back up to 25%. So a Region that had gone Democratic 69% of the time in competitive elections drops to just 25%. Or from 76% for the Democrats, to 75% against. (I can’t say “Republican” due to Independent Wallace getting some states in ’68, but they still went against the Democrats all the same, and clearly over civil rights when you’ve got George Wallace winning.) It really striking when you look at a state like Alabama: From 1876 to 1960 the only time a Democrat didn’t with was in 1948, when it went to “Dixiecrat” Strom Thurmond. Since 1964 the only Democrat to win was Carter in ’76. Johnson lost it in ’64, despite winning a National Landslide, and despite the Democrats’ near 100 year dominance of the state, and other than ’76 (and ’68 when it was carried by George Wallace) it’s gone Republican every year.

The Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio &Wisconsin) had been a Republican mainstay, going Democratic just 27% of the time from 1860 to 1960, and just 15% if you take out FDR and Wilson’12. Since 1964, it’s been the definitive battleground region, split exactly 50/50. (Although is 54% Democratic if you take out Reagan’84, Nixon’72 and Johnson’64) About the only two states in the region that have had any dominance by either party are Minnesota, which only went Republican with Nixon in ’72, and was the only STATE not carried by Reagan in ’84; and Indiana, which until Obama last year had not been won by a Democrat since Johnson in ’64.

The Mountain States (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah & Wyoming) had always been Republican strongholds, and have largely remained that way or, if anything, have gotten more so: They went 39% Democratic from 1860 to 1960, and just 17% if you take out FDR and Wilson’12. Since 1964, they gone Democratic just 18% of the time, 9% when you ignore Reagan’84, Nixon’72 and Johnson ’64.

The Pacific states underwent a shift, but it was later, and it really excludes Alaska, which votes more like a Mountain state: Republican every year, except for Johnson in ’64. But looking at just California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington, they’ve gone to the Democrats 100% since 1992. Prior to that, they went Democrat just 28% of the time from 1964 to 1988, and going back to 1860, these states went Democratic just 30% of the time, 17% if your exclude FDR and Wilson’12. The one thing the may have had keeping them Republican after 1964, despite being more liberal that their Mountain neighbors, may have been the four candidacies by former California Governors Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. It’s also reasonable to assume that they were farther removed from the civil rights issues, and thus in and of itself this was not a factor in their ideological drift.

So there you go: Racial issues flipped the COUNTRY from being predominantly Democratic to predominantly Republican, following the Civil War and shifted or reversed key regional voting patterns following the passing of Civil Right legislation.


To further illustrate the point, the following charts show the political leangings of each region, as I've deifned them.  The % reported on the chart is the % of States in the region that went to the (or 'a') Democratic candidate in the time period defined.  Red for Republican, Blue for Democrat.

Here's what the country looks like, pre-civil war:

Although counted in the Northest, New York and Pensylvania were really battleground states.

Here's the dramatic shift following the Civil War, and through the Civil Rights era:

From 1860 to 1960 the Republican's dominated every region except the Southeast.  Following the Civil Right Era however, it looks like this:

Northeast and Southest flip, Pacific moves to the left, and the Midwest essentially determines the winner.  (Minnesota and Indiana are the only states in the region that consistenlty support one party or the other.)

And if you are completely insane found this interesting, here is a far more detailed animation (not mine!) that shows the margin of victory, by party, by district, from 1856 through 2004.  It's pretty wild to watch the shifting party allegences in the 1960's.  Also, some of the landslides I've excluded will jump right out at you.  Others will look more evenly distributed, but I'm going by Electoral Votes, winner take all, in my analysis.  And there were some ELECTORAL landslides that we a lot closer in the POPULAR vote. 

Anyway, I hope you didn't fall asleep found this interesting.