|
|
| Author |
Message |
anonymouse
Wizard
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
{Posts: 608 }
|
 Posted: Mon 27 Oct 2008 21:09 Post subject: In Defense of White Americans |
 |
|
| Quote: | In Defense of White Americans
By FRANK RICH
Published: October 25, 2008
IT seems like a century ago now, but it was only in 2005 that a National Journal poll of Beltway insiders predicted that George Allen, then a popular Virginia senator, would be the next G.O.P. nominee for president. George who? Allen is now remembered, if at all, as a punch line. But any post-mortem of the Great Republican Collapse of 2008 must circle back to the not-so-funny thing that happened on his way to the White House.
That would be in 2006, when he capsized his own shoo-in re-election race by calling a 20-year-old Indian-American “macaca” before a white audience (and a video camera). “Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia,” Allen told the young Democratic campaign worker for good measure, in a precise preview of the playbook that has led John McCain and Sarah Palin to their tawdry nadir two years later.
It wasn’t just Allen’s lame racial joke or his cluelessness about 21st-century media like YouTube that made him a harbinger of the current G.O.P. fiasco. It was most of all the national vision he set forth: There are Real Americans, and there are the Others.
The Real are the small-town white folks Allen was addressing in southwestern Virginia. The Others — and their subversive fellow travelers, the Elites — are Americans like the young man whom Allen maligned: a high-achieving son of immigrant parents who was born and raised in Washington’s Northern Virginia suburbs during its technology boom. (Allen, the self-appointed keeper of real Virginia, grew up in California.)
Cut to 2008. You’d think that this incident would be a cautionary tale, but the McCain campaign instead embraced Allen as a role model, with Palin’s odes to “real” and “pro-America” America leading the charge. The farcical apotheosis of this strategy arrived last weekend, again on camera and again in Virginia, when a McCain adviser, Nancy Pfotenhauer, revived Allen’s original script, literally, during an interview on MSNBC.
After dismissing the Northern Virginia suburbs, she asserted that the “real Virginia” — the part of the state “more Southern in nature” — will prove “very responsive” to the McCain message. All Pfotenhauer left out was “macaca,” but with McCain calling Barack Obama’s tax plan “welfare” and campaign surrogates (including the robo-calling Rudy Giuliani) linking the Democrat to violent, Willie Horton-like criminality, that would have been redundant.
We don’t know yet if McCain will go the way of Allen in a state that hasn’t voted for a Democratic president since 1964, when L.B.J. vanquished another Arizona Republican in a landslide. But we do know that Obama swept like a conquering hero through Richmond, the former capital of the Confederacy, last week and that he leads in every recent Virginia poll.
There are at least two larger national lessons to be learned from what is likely to be the last gasp of Allen-McCain-Palin politics in 2008. The first, and easy one, is that Republican leaders have no idea what “real America” is. In the eight years since the first Bush-Cheney convention pledged inclusiveness and showcased Colin Powell as its opening-night speaker, the G.O.P. has terminally alienated black Americans (Powell himself now included), immigrant Americans (including the Hispanics who once gave Bush-Cheney as much as 44 percent of their votes) and the extended families of gay Americans (Palin has now revived a constitutional crusade against same-sex marriage). Subtract all those players from the actual America, and you don’t have enough of a bench to field a junior varsity volleyball team, let alone a serious campaign for the Electoral College.
But the other, less noticed lesson of the year has to do with the white people the McCain campaign has been pandering to. As we saw first in the Democratic primary results and see now in the widespread revulsion at the McCain-Palin tactics, white Americans are not remotely the bigots the G.O.P. would have us believe. Just because a campaign trades in racism doesn’t mean that the country is racist. It’s past time to come to the unfairly maligned white America’s defense.
That includes acknowledging that the so-called liberal media, among their other failures this year, have helped ratchet up this election cycle’s prevailing antiwhite bias. Ever since Obama declared his candidacy, the press’s default setting has been to ominously intone that “in the privacy of the voting booth” ignorant, backward whites will never vote for a black man.
A leading vehicle for this journalistic mind-set has been the unending obsession with “the Bradley effect” — as if nothing has changed in America since 1982, when some polls (possibly for reasons having nothing to do with race) predicted erroneously that a black candidate, Tom Bradley, would win the California governorship. In 2008, there is, if anything, more evidence of a reverse Bradley effect — Obama’s primary vote totals more often exceeded those in the final polls than not — but poor old Bradley keeps being flogged anyway.
So do all those deer hunters in western Pennsylvania. Once Hillary Clinton whipped Obama in the Rust Belt, it’s been a bloviation staple (echoing the Clinton camp’s line) that a black guy is doomed among Reagan Democrats, Joe Sixpacks, rednecks, Joe the Plumbers or whichever condescending term you want to choose. (Clinton at one low point settled on “hard-working Americans, white Americans.”) Michigan in particular was repeatedly said to be slipping out of the Democrats’ reach because of incorrigible racism — until McCain abandoned it as hopeless this month in the face of a double-digit Obama lead.
The constant tide of anthropological articles and television reports set in blue-collar diners, bars and bowling alleys have hyped this racial theory of the race. So did the rampant misreading of primary-season exit polls. On cable TV and the Sunday network shows, there was endless chewing over the internal numbers in the Clinton victories. It was doomsday news for Obama, for instance, that some 12 percent of white Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania said race was a factor in their choice and three-quarters of them voted for Clinton. Ipso facto — and despite the absence of any credible empirical evidence — these Clinton voters would either stay home or flock to McCain in November.
The McCain campaign is so dumb that it bought into the press’s confirmation of its own prejudices. Even though registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 1.2 million in Pennsylvania (more than double the 2004 gap), even though Obama leads by double digits in almost every recent Pennsylvania poll and even though no national Republican ticket has won there since 1988, McCain started pouring his dwindling resources into the state this month. When the Democratic Representative John Murtha described his own western Pennsylvania district as a “racist area,” McCain feigned outrage and put down even more chips on the race card, calling the region the “most patriotic, most God-loving” part of America.
Well, there are racists in western Pennsylvania, as there are in most pockets of our country. But despite the months-long drumbeat of punditry to the contrary, there are not and have never been enough racists in 2008 to flip this election. In the latest New York Times/CBS News and Pew national polls, Obama is now pulling even with McCain among white men, a feat accomplished by no Democratic presidential candidate in three decades, Bill Clinton included. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey finds age doing more damage to McCain than race to Obama.
Nor is America’s remaining racism all that it once was, or that the McCain camp has been hoping for it to be. There are even “racists for Obama,” as Politico labels the phenomenon: White Americans whose distrust of black people in general crumbles when they actually get to know specific black people, including a presidential candidate who extends a genuine helping hand in a time of national crisis.
The original “racist for Obama,” after all, was none other than Obama’s own white, Kansas-raised grandmother, the gravely ill Madelyn Dunham, whom he visited in Hawaii on Friday. In “Dreams From My Father,” Obama wrote of how shaken he was when he learned of her overwhelming fear of black men on the street. But he weighed that reality against his unshakeable love for her and hers for him, and he got past it.
When Obama cited her in his speech on race last spring, the right immediately accused him of “throwing his grandmother under the bus.” But Obama’s critics were merely projecting their own racial hang-ups. He still loves his grandmother. He was merely speaking candidly and generously — like an adult — about the strange, complex and ever-changing racial dynamics of America. He hit a chord because many of us have had white relatives of our own like his, and we, too, see them in full and often love them anyway.
Such human nuances are lost on conservative warriors of the Allen-McCain-Palin ilk. They see all Americans as only white or black, as either us or them. The dirty little secret of such divisive politicians has always been that their rage toward the Others is exceeded only by their cynical conviction that Real Americans are a benighted bunch of easily manipulated bigots. This seems to be the election year when voters in most of our myriad Americas are figuring that out. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
girlfromthenc
Mentor
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 231 }
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 00:46 Post subject: |
|
|
Everything having to do with race in this country in general is oversimplified. I think many Whites probably won't vote for Obama but the reasons vary. I have found many Whites vote Republican simply because they think that's what "rich people" do.  Others always vote Republican ( regardless if the Democratic candidate is White or not) and will continue to do so hoping for tax breaks. Lower class Whites tend to vote Republican I'm finding because of its anti-immigration policies. And some yes, because he is Black and they are afraid that he will pass legislature that will only benefit the AA population and hurt them.
Despite all this, Obama is still in the lead so that does mean that half or close to half of all Whites did vote for him instead of John McCain.
Racist Whites are certainly not rare in America, but its also increasing clear that White mothers with mixed children are increasing by the day also. And many Whites seem to be more sympathic to Black concerns when someone in their family might have some of these racist taunts aimed at them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fwsweet
Administrator
Joined: 26 Nov 2004
{Posts: 4584 }
Location: Palm Coast, FL
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 01:11 Post subject: |
|
|
| girlfromthenc wrote: | | its also increasing clear that White mothers with mixed children are ... |
Are there any Black mothers with mixed children? Just asking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G-Man
Moderator
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 2652 }
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 12:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| girlfromthenc wrote: | Lower class Whites tend to vote Republican I'm finding because of its anti-immigration policies.
|
I'm curious as to what these anti-immigration policies are? Many make this claim, but Republicans are more likely to call for enforcement of immigration laws against illegals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G-Man
Moderator
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 2652 }
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 12:43 Post subject: |
|
|
| fwsweet wrote: | | girlfromthenc wrote: | | its also increasing clear that White mothers with mixed children are ... |
Are there any Black mothers with mixed children? Just asking. |
Not to speak for girlfromthenc but I think she is looking at this from the perspective of whites. It is assumed that white women are more likely to have mixed children than black women. That is probably why she inserted the quoted statement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dragon Horse
Superuser
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
{Posts: 1301 }
Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 13:13 Post subject: |
|
|
| girlfromthenc wrote: |
Racist Whites are certainly not rare in America, but its also increasing clear that White mothers with mixed children are increasing by the day also. And many Whites seem to be more sympathic to Black concerns when someone in their family might have some of these racist taunts aimed at them. |
This is an interesting statement. Most white American women don't have "mixed" children (if you are talking about black/white mixed) but we usually look at interracial marraige figures to try to estimate this which are not at all accurate.
MOST BLACKS DON'T MARRY, even other blacks.
We should be looking at "race" of parent on birth certificates, but the problem is in many states this is not recorded or even if it is the father's name is not required.
What I do know is black co-habitation with whites is much higher than black marriage with whites.
| Quote: | | "Research yields that 7% of married black man are with white wives and 15% of black men cohabit with white women." |
15% of black men live with white women, that is very high...about 3 million...and how many children are there? I would bet over 50% of these couples have at least one kid. However we can't provide evidence of this. All I can say is that I see a lot of young white women in DC with no wedding rings or engagement rings on their fingers with mixed race kids...far more than I see "obviously married" white women with mixed race kids.
Swanbrow, Diane (2000-03-23). "Intimate Relationships Between Races More Common Than Thought". University of Michigan. Retrieved on 2008-07-15. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anonymouse
Wizard
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
{Posts: 608 }
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 13:28 Post subject: |
|
|
| DC isn't real America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fwsweet
Administrator
Joined: 26 Nov 2004
{Posts: 4584 }
Location: Palm Coast, FL
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 13:35 Post subject: |
|
|
| Dragon Horse wrote: | | What I do know is black co-habitation with whites is much higher than black marriage with whites. |
This is true, and the point is often overlooked, even in academia. It is worthwhile bringing it up again.
Historically, U.S. society has often looked the other way regarding out-of-wedlock liasons across the color line, even permanent ones that create familes and raise children. But mere sex (even family-rearing sex) and formal marriage are two very different things. The former has sometimes been frowned upon but was seldom illegal. The latter has been a criminal offense in most jurisdictions since early 1700s (until legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967). For an excellent account of the differences between the two phenomena (out-of-wedlock liasons versus formal marriages) in the early antebellum slave south, see the late Gary B. Mills's, “Miscegenation and the Free Negro in Antebellum 'Anglo' Alabama: A Reexamination of Southern Race Relations,” Journal of American History 68, no. 1 (1981): 16-34.
The short explanation is that marriage (as opposed to out-of-wedlock liasons) is society's way of recognizing a legally enforceable alliance between two extended families, with mutual rights of inheritance. This has never been widely tolerated in the U.S. across the color line. It still isn't. Formal intermarriage across the U.S. B/W color line is an order of magnitude lower than across any other ethnic boundary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G-Man
Moderator
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 2652 }
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 13:43 Post subject: |
|
|
15% that's almost as high as Great Britain.
I usually see quite a few white women with mixed kids and interacial couples in general at my local Target in Alexandria, VA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fwsweet
Administrator
Joined: 26 Nov 2004
{Posts: 4584 }
Location: Palm Coast, FL
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 13:46 Post subject: |
|
|
| G-Man wrote: | | 15% that's almost as high as Great Britain. |
Less than 4 percent of formally married African Americans have a White spouse. About 40 percent percent of formally married Afro-Brit West Indians in England have a White spouse. See Unions between blacks and whites: England and the US compared for details. See my previous note for the U.S. emphasis on formal marriage as opposed to mere cohabitation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dragon Horse
Superuser
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
{Posts: 1301 }
Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 14:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| G-Man wrote: | 15% that's almost as high as Great Britain.
I usually see quite a few white women with mixed kids and interacial couples in general at my local Target in Alexandria, VA. |
On Route 1? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anonymouse
Wizard
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
{Posts: 608 }
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 16:28 Post subject: |
|
|
| Can't touch Columbia though. My son played soccer out there for the last couple of years. Most of the american "black" kids that play (of the few that play) are biracial. I have heard that Columbia was designed as a bi/multiracial community. I never really gave credence to that urban legend but if you sit in the food court of Columbia Towne Center Mall, the sheer number of biracial children and/or couples of all "races" and ethnicities can be startling to some. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sagascend
Moderator
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
{Posts: 2111 }
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 16:36 Post subject: |
|
|
| anonymouse wrote: | | Can't touch Columbia though. My son played soccer out there for the last couple of years. Most of the american "black" kids that play (of the few that play) are biracial. I have heard that Columbia was designed as a bi/multiracial community. I never really gave credence to that urban legend but if you sit in the food court of Columbia Towne Center Mall, the sheer number of biracial children and/or couples of all "races" and ethnicities can be startling to some. |
I've heard this as well. My great aunt and uncle (my grandma's sister + brother in law) bought a home there in the 60s because of the reputation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G-Man
Moderator
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 2652 }
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 16:50 Post subject: |
|
|
| Dragon Horse wrote: | | G-Man wrote: | 15% that's almost as high as Great Britain.
I usually see quite a few white women with mixed kids and interacial couples in general at my local Target in Alexandria, VA. |
On Route 1? |
Yeah....I swear that and the one off route 50 in Annandale (?) are a meeting ground for black/white interracial couples and their children. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G-Man
Moderator
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 2652 }
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 16:59 Post subject: |
|
|
| sagascend wrote: | | anonymouse wrote: | | Can't touch Columbia though. My son played soccer out there for the last couple of years. Most of the american "black" kids that play (of the few that play) are biracial. I have heard that Columbia was designed as a bi/multiracial community. I never really gave credence to that urban legend but if you sit in the food court of Columbia Towne Center Mall, the sheer number of biracial children and/or couples of all "races" and ethnicities can be startling to some. |
I've heard this as well. My great aunt and uncle (my grandma's sister + brother in law) bought a home there in the 60s because of the reputation. |
It's true. It's supposed to be one of those places more tolerant of black/white interracial couples. I think Mixedmom lives near there.
Interestingly, I found this out from a black couple from Columbia at my former company's Xmas party back in 2000. The couple voiced their surprise and disapproval at all the mixed couples they encountered out there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DChapman
Moderator
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 1466 }
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 17:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| That's Columbia, MD, right??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G-Man
Moderator
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 2652 }
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 17:55 Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dragon Horse
Superuser
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
{Posts: 1301 }
Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 22:30 Post subject: |
|
|
| G-Man wrote: | | Dragon Horse wrote: | | G-Man wrote: | 15% that's almost as high as Great Britain.
I usually see quite a few white women with mixed kids and interacial couples in general at my local Target in Alexandria, VA. |
On Route 1? |
Yeah....I swear that and the one off route 50 in Annandale (?) are a meeting ground for black/white interracial couples and their children. |
Go to Wall Mart a little further south down Route 1, by Gold's Gym.
Target is nothing.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G-Man
Moderator
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 2652 }
|
| Posted: Wed 29 Oct 2008 12:38 Post subject: |
|
|
Walmart? Maybe that's where the less sophisticated, less wealthy interracial couples shop.  I'll stick to Target. I hate Walmart. Plus Targets are closer. There's three in close proximity to where I live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
