Finding doctors and lawyers and small business owner in the KKK does not prove that "racism ... has always been part and parcel of the educated white middle class" -- any more than finding that some violent people come from the black urban underclass proves that violence is "part and parcel" of that group.
There are some bad elements in every large demographic group. There are racists who lean to the left. There are racists who are not white. There are white religious conservatives who adopt black children -- and get attacked for it from the far left and the far right.
The reflex to say that "conservatism has always been racist to the core, and nothing but racism," is tiresomely predictable.
Predictable possibly because accurate no matter how little you want to believe it.
This country was BUILT on a near-genocide against the native population! The South at least was BUILT on slavery of a kidnapped race!
I call that racism. Perhaps it's a matter of semantics. What do you call it?
What is genocide if not at least in part racism?
(Ok, Why is Putin murdering Ukrainian Russians along with other Ukrainians? Why is he destroying a culture that is basically Russian (well, Russia is basically Ukrainian since Ukraine is the older culture but you take my meaning? Does this mean there is no racism in Putin's actions? Then what do we call it? Just evil? Just hate?)
You can call it a lot of different things--in the simplest and most direct description it is US versus Them--in group and out group.
When the boundary between Us and Them has a visible component (skin color, other physical characteristics), then we tend to call it racism. The reality is that the visible difference is simply seized upon to justify the Us/Them dynamic--just as a difference in religion or language or whatever is used.
Ideological or religious or cultural differences don't have a handy label like that, but are often more important.
You are more likely to reach people talking in terms of inherent bias, if you are trying to have an actual discussion. Racism, as a term these days, basically closes the door to conversation other than the tired conversation of I am not racist and yes you are.
Race is an artifact that is socially constructed. On a genetic level (so far as we currently know) there is more variability between individuals than there is between the "races."
In order for the Us/Them dynamic to come into play all you need to do is create some difference--and this difference can actually be very small and almost meaningless in the larger scheme. This is how Russians can kill Russians that are living in Ukraine (and who do not identify, themselves, as Ukrainian).
It is (sadly) a standard human practice that most likely has arisen through selection over the course of evolution with the "end" being the propagation of a particular genotype--we have just revised and extended it for our own purposes.
Again, it is simply a matter of perceived similarity versus perceived difference and may often be more a matter of narrative than fact. It seems rather cold and neutral when described that way, at that remove (but that is where the understanding comes in) and the reality is invariably hateful and almost always evil--at least from a certain distance. Those inured in the dynamic see it as a good.
Loke most social constructs, it all depends upon where you are standing.
One of the things I've been thinking about lately is how old slavery actually is. Joseph, for instance, was sold into slavery.
The other thing I've been thinking about is how little those with Some or Much care about those with Little or Less. That makes it an economic motive. And I do see that in much of what Republicanism is and has been. At least Democrats for the most part seem to care however bad they are at it.
Slavery is likely older than recorded history. Many civilizations relied upon it or more limited forms of it on both the social and economic levels.
Slavery in Rome was not a racial thing as it was in the US or in other places--at least it was not usually seen or talked about in those terms. It WAS still an in/out group thing... either on the basis of straight out power, of civilized v. barbarians, rich v poor.
Slavery was often characterized as something of a mercy--to those defeated in war it was supposedly better than death (though it usually simply meant a delayed death, often in unpleasant circumstances, plus it meant greater profit for the victor)--to those on the edge of starvation it meant potential life. People would sell their children or themselves into slavery in order to survive... because there were no social insurance programs.
In the end, machines largely replaced slavery because it was more economical, and you didn't have to worry about rebellions.
I read an excellent book last year, "Dark Places of the Earth"; much more than just the story of the slave ship Antelope. But clearly you are right that it isn't based on race but money and conquest.
Stuart Stevens worked all his life in Republican politics -- 5 presidential campaigns, if I remember rightly. One of the painful insights that led to his book, "It Was All A Lie," is that racism really is at the heart of the GOP.
Who owned slaves and redlined suburban neighborhoods? Who refused to rent to Black people? Who moved their kids to private schools rather than attend integrated schools?
Also, The 1920s KKK was a massive group that controlled several state governments and when added to the Democratic Party of that era made up the majority of white voters.
So, when wasn't conservatism racist? Was it when Reagan gave a states' rights speech in Philadelphia MS? Was it when Buckley said segregation was good? Was it when conservatives fought for the right to own slaves in The Civil War? When was American conservatism not anti-Black?
I was brought up in a conservative religious family. My parents usually voted Republican, but not always. I never heard a racist word from them, ever, and their conduct toward people of other races was always cordial. Likewise with other people I've known who identify as conservative.
There are black people today who vote Republican. Black voters tend to be more conservative in their attitudes than white activist Democrats.
Republicans fought against the right to own slaves in the Civil War.
LBJ often made obnoxiously racist statements, though he calculated that getting the black vote would be politically advantageous.
Conservatives have asked useful questions about whether the social policies promoted by Democrats really improve the condition of black Americans in -- or just make white Democrats feel good about themselves.
There are people who constantly seek to gain political advantage by alleging that everything a conservative ever does or proposes is always fundamentally racist - even if it has nothing to do with race. E.g. Dems often said that conservative opposition to the ACA was essentially racist -- which is absurd..
The Dems often go overboard on the left, as GOP does on the right. The ACA opposition was financial. The reason so many were left to die in Katrina was financial (poor were left; those with a car got out). Republicans always fight against helping others who have less than they do! Republicans hate giving money to anyone but the rich. There is often if not always a financial component to Republicanism if not conservatism. So are white supremacists acting to preserve their wealth or their chance at wealth against The Other who might get a share? Or is it possibly both? Because they seem to hate women too. Maybe we need a new word for what is being done to us.
My grandfather was quite racist. His daughter, my mother, tried to be a better person, teaching us, "You need to respect all people, even the blacks" without ever understanding that she should have put a period where her comma is. I know because I tried to explain it to her. Her response, ''m not racist like my father." Improvement is quite slow and incremental.
"There are black people today who vote Republican. Black voters tend to be more conservative in their attitudes than white activist Democrats."
Somewhere between 10-15% of black voters go Republican depending on the election. There are of course outliers to that but it's the general rule. They're probably the least Republican voting bloc in America.
"Activist Democrats" is a bit of an artificial label but if you mean people who carry signs and say things like "latinx" you're talking about a tiny fraction of Democratic voters. So your statement might be true, but doesn't mean much.
"Republicans fought against the right to own slaves in the Civil War.
LBJ often made obnoxiously racist statements, though he calculated that getting the black vote would be politically advantageous."
You are describing the actions of two political parties between 50-150 years ago. Almost everyone in power from that time is dead, and most voters don't remember the 60's except maybe their childhood.
"Conservatives have asked useful questions about whether the social policies promoted by Democrats really improve the condition of black Americans in -- or just make white Democrats feel good about themselves."
What questions do you think those are?
"Dems often said that conservative opposition to the ACA was essentially racist -- which is absurd.. "
I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone write or say that ACA was just a hand out to lazy blacks who don't want to work.
The Republicans that fought against the right to own slaves in the Civil War were the progressives of their day. The conservatives were in the Democratic party back then. It wasn't until the 1960s-1970s that conservatives really started leaving the Democratic party for the Republican party.
My father was also a Republican, and one of the best people I've ever known. He owned a business that employed mostly Mexican-Americans. All the higher level jobs were held by Anglos; it never occurred to him to promote the Chicanos. He was a racist. He was a kind, fun, curious person, one who might be, if he was alive today, able to discover his own racism, and change it. I like to think so.
It's just something people haven't thought about before because we're taught Democrats = Liberal and Republicans = Conservative with no acknowledgment that the parties basically swapped places about 60 years ago.
And yet on historical examination, there is a lot of it there, in a quiet dog-whistle-ly kind of way (and more openly these days). Conservatism has always been fighting a battle against this element in their ranks. Just ask WF Buckley. Lately they seem to have given up.
Are there people with inherent bias in a lot of places--well, actually, there are people with inherent bias EVERYWHERE.
Who has been dog whistling (and being increasingly open about it to the point of espousing racial replacement theory as a mainstream party idea) the crap out of it for the last 40 years or more for political advantage?
Finding doctors and lawyers and small business owner in the KKK does not prove that "racism ... has always been part and parcel of the educated white middle class" -- any more than finding that some violent people come from the black urban underclass proves that violence is "part and parcel" of that group.
There are some bad elements in every large demographic group. There are racists who lean to the left. There are racists who are not white. There are white religious conservatives who adopt black children -- and get attacked for it from the far left and the far right.
The reflex to say that "conservatism has always been racist to the core, and nothing but racism," is tiresomely predictable.
Predictable possibly because accurate no matter how little you want to believe it.
This country was BUILT on a near-genocide against the native population! The South at least was BUILT on slavery of a kidnapped race!
I call that racism. Perhaps it's a matter of semantics. What do you call it?
What is genocide if not at least in part racism?
(Ok, Why is Putin murdering Ukrainian Russians along with other Ukrainians? Why is he destroying a culture that is basically Russian (well, Russia is basically Ukrainian since Ukraine is the older culture but you take my meaning? Does this mean there is no racism in Putin's actions? Then what do we call it? Just evil? Just hate?)
You can call it a lot of different things--in the simplest and most direct description it is US versus Them--in group and out group.
When the boundary between Us and Them has a visible component (skin color, other physical characteristics), then we tend to call it racism. The reality is that the visible difference is simply seized upon to justify the Us/Them dynamic--just as a difference in religion or language or whatever is used.
Ideological or religious or cultural differences don't have a handy label like that, but are often more important.
You are more likely to reach people talking in terms of inherent bias, if you are trying to have an actual discussion. Racism, as a term these days, basically closes the door to conversation other than the tired conversation of I am not racist and yes you are.
Race is an artifact that is socially constructed. On a genetic level (so far as we currently know) there is more variability between individuals than there is between the "races."
In order for the Us/Them dynamic to come into play all you need to do is create some difference--and this difference can actually be very small and almost meaningless in the larger scheme. This is how Russians can kill Russians that are living in Ukraine (and who do not identify, themselves, as Ukrainian).
It is (sadly) a standard human practice that most likely has arisen through selection over the course of evolution with the "end" being the propagation of a particular genotype--we have just revised and extended it for our own purposes.
Again, it is simply a matter of perceived similarity versus perceived difference and may often be more a matter of narrative than fact. It seems rather cold and neutral when described that way, at that remove (but that is where the understanding comes in) and the reality is invariably hateful and almost always evil--at least from a certain distance. Those inured in the dynamic see it as a good.
Loke most social constructs, it all depends upon where you are standing.
One of the things I've been thinking about lately is how old slavery actually is. Joseph, for instance, was sold into slavery.
The other thing I've been thinking about is how little those with Some or Much care about those with Little or Less. That makes it an economic motive. And I do see that in much of what Republicanism is and has been. At least Democrats for the most part seem to care however bad they are at it.
Slavery is likely older than recorded history. Many civilizations relied upon it or more limited forms of it on both the social and economic levels.
Slavery in Rome was not a racial thing as it was in the US or in other places--at least it was not usually seen or talked about in those terms. It WAS still an in/out group thing... either on the basis of straight out power, of civilized v. barbarians, rich v poor.
Slavery was often characterized as something of a mercy--to those defeated in war it was supposedly better than death (though it usually simply meant a delayed death, often in unpleasant circumstances, plus it meant greater profit for the victor)--to those on the edge of starvation it meant potential life. People would sell their children or themselves into slavery in order to survive... because there were no social insurance programs.
In the end, machines largely replaced slavery because it was more economical, and you didn't have to worry about rebellions.
I read an excellent book last year, "Dark Places of the Earth"; much more than just the story of the slave ship Antelope. But clearly you are right that it isn't based on race but money and conquest.
Stuart Stevens worked all his life in Republican politics -- 5 presidential campaigns, if I remember rightly. One of the painful insights that led to his book, "It Was All A Lie," is that racism really is at the heart of the GOP.
Strom Thurmond fathered a Black child, does that make him not a racist?
Who owned slaves and redlined suburban neighborhoods? Who refused to rent to Black people? Who moved their kids to private schools rather than attend integrated schools?
Also, The 1920s KKK was a massive group that controlled several state governments and when added to the Democratic Party of that era made up the majority of white voters.
So, when wasn't conservatism racist? Was it when Reagan gave a states' rights speech in Philadelphia MS? Was it when Buckley said segregation was good? Was it when conservatives fought for the right to own slaves in The Civil War? When was American conservatism not anti-Black?
I was brought up in a conservative religious family. My parents usually voted Republican, but not always. I never heard a racist word from them, ever, and their conduct toward people of other races was always cordial. Likewise with other people I've known who identify as conservative.
There are black people today who vote Republican. Black voters tend to be more conservative in their attitudes than white activist Democrats.
Republicans fought against the right to own slaves in the Civil War.
LBJ often made obnoxiously racist statements, though he calculated that getting the black vote would be politically advantageous.
Conservatives have asked useful questions about whether the social policies promoted by Democrats really improve the condition of black Americans in -- or just make white Democrats feel good about themselves.
There are people who constantly seek to gain political advantage by alleging that everything a conservative ever does or proposes is always fundamentally racist - even if it has nothing to do with race. E.g. Dems often said that conservative opposition to the ACA was essentially racist -- which is absurd..
The Dems often go overboard on the left, as GOP does on the right. The ACA opposition was financial. The reason so many were left to die in Katrina was financial (poor were left; those with a car got out). Republicans always fight against helping others who have less than they do! Republicans hate giving money to anyone but the rich. There is often if not always a financial component to Republicanism if not conservatism. So are white supremacists acting to preserve their wealth or their chance at wealth against The Other who might get a share? Or is it possibly both? Because they seem to hate women too. Maybe we need a new word for what is being done to us.
My grandfather was quite racist. His daughter, my mother, tried to be a better person, teaching us, "You need to respect all people, even the blacks" without ever understanding that she should have put a period where her comma is. I know because I tried to explain it to her. Her response, ''m not racist like my father." Improvement is quite slow and incremental.
"There are black people today who vote Republican. Black voters tend to be more conservative in their attitudes than white activist Democrats."
Somewhere between 10-15% of black voters go Republican depending on the election. There are of course outliers to that but it's the general rule. They're probably the least Republican voting bloc in America.
"Activist Democrats" is a bit of an artificial label but if you mean people who carry signs and say things like "latinx" you're talking about a tiny fraction of Democratic voters. So your statement might be true, but doesn't mean much.
"Republicans fought against the right to own slaves in the Civil War.
LBJ often made obnoxiously racist statements, though he calculated that getting the black vote would be politically advantageous."
You are describing the actions of two political parties between 50-150 years ago. Almost everyone in power from that time is dead, and most voters don't remember the 60's except maybe their childhood.
"Conservatives have asked useful questions about whether the social policies promoted by Democrats really improve the condition of black Americans in -- or just make white Democrats feel good about themselves."
What questions do you think those are?
"Dems often said that conservative opposition to the ACA was essentially racist -- which is absurd.. "
I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone write or say that ACA was just a hand out to lazy blacks who don't want to work.
The Republicans that fought against the right to own slaves in the Civil War were the progressives of their day. The conservatives were in the Democratic party back then. It wasn't until the 1960s-1970s that conservatives really started leaving the Democratic party for the Republican party.
My father was also a Republican, and one of the best people I've ever known. He owned a business that employed mostly Mexican-Americans. All the higher level jobs were held by Anglos; it never occurred to him to promote the Chicanos. He was a racist. He was a kind, fun, curious person, one who might be, if he was alive today, able to discover his own racism, and change it. I like to think so.
I can't believe people still don't get that Nixon saw Wallace's vote totals and targeted those ex Dems in the South
It's just something people haven't thought about before because we're taught Democrats = Liberal and Republicans = Conservative with no acknowledgment that the parties basically swapped places about 60 years ago.
I've taught it every year in US History for 23 years and I suspect some posters here were alive when it happened :)
If Black voters are more conservative, than why do the overwhelmingly vote Democratic?
So, the US was better off before the CRA and the VRA? That's a useful question? Do you even see what you're writing?
And yet on historical examination, there is a lot of it there, in a quiet dog-whistle-ly kind of way (and more openly these days). Conservatism has always been fighting a battle against this element in their ranks. Just ask WF Buckley. Lately they seem to have given up.
Are there people with inherent bias in a lot of places--well, actually, there are people with inherent bias EVERYWHERE.
Who has been dog whistling (and being increasingly open about it to the point of espousing racial replacement theory as a mainstream party idea) the crap out of it for the last 40 years or more for political advantage?