> Although, it is wrong to call it pro-white, and the pro-white narrative comes from the ideology that I was criticizing. It is anti-black and anti-poor.
I think it's both pro-white and anti-black. When you dig back through US history, you see plenty of evidence of both a belief system that whites are the best (and thus deserve to have power over other races) as well as that blacks are particularly deserving of their lowest status. Other races and ethnicities form a more complex middle ground. In many places and times there simply weren't a great enough quantity of those members of those groups for any well-defined cultural claim to be made.
I don't think your average 19th century Virginia farmer had a strong opinion one way or the other about the relatively inferiority of, say, the Sami people because they'd never even heard of one. Whites in almost all parts of the US by necessity had to incorporate blackness into their culture because—thanks almost entirely to the slave trade—blacks were so present in much of the country and were enshrined in its laws and institutions.
> As an example, in what way are institutions biased in favor of poor rural white people?
"Poor", "rural", and "white" are three ways to slice demographics and the way they interact can sometimes illuminate and sometimes obscure.
I think most of what you're seeing is that it generally sucks to be poor and rural, full stop. In 1910, there were about 13 million US farm workers. Today there are about 3 million. In 1979, there were close to 20 million manufacturing jobs. Today it's around 12 million.
This disproportionally hurts whites because black people have historically concentrated in urban areas (often driven by trying to escape anti-black racism). So it's easy to have a vivid image of how much it sucks for some opioid addicted country-music blaring coal-rolling white dude living in a trailer in Appalachia compared to some hip black guy riding the subway in NYC listening to billionaire Kanye's latest album.
But that's comparing different cohorts. The real question is what is it like for a poor, rural, black person? Black people make up only 3% of the population of West Virginia, but 28% of its prison population. (Whites are 93% of the state, but 65% of prisoners.)
Meanwhile in NYC, black people are 16% of the state population but 53% of its prison population. The median household income for white people is $80,300, for black people it's $42,600.
So, yes, I agree that poor rural folks have gotten the short end of the stick since neoliberalism took over. And their perception of relative worsening is something that we should look at. (I think it's one of the primary drivers of the Tea Party, Trumpism, the alt-right, etc.) While their anger at black people is misplaced and wrong, I can empathize with where it's coming from. It hurts to feel that others are moving ahead while you yourself are not.
But at the same time, it has always been hard to be black in the US and it's still hard. Here's a fun (spoiler: not fucking fun at all) guessing game to play if you don't already know the answer: When was the last lynching in the United States?
If you were naive, you might guess the late 1800s when Jim Crow laws were rife and the country was still coming to grips with emancipation. Maybe you'd guess the 1930s when the KKK was flourishing. You would hope it wasn't the 1950s when economic prosperity and blacks and whites fighting together in WWII should have brought us together. Hopefully no later than the 1960s when the Civil Rights Act was signed.
Actually, it was 1981. His name was Michael Donald. He was 19 years old and was chosen at random by KKK members angry about an unrelated murder trial "to show Klan strength in Alabama".
He was killed by poor rural whites who were this close to getting away with it completely until the FBI got involved.
"When you dig back through US history, you see plenty of evidence of both a belief system that whites are the best"
I'm referring to the criminal justice system today. Is there reason to think it's more pro-White than pro-Asian or pro-Hindu?
I only see evidence that the system today is anti-Black and anti-poor.
I accept the historical examples you've given of pro-white attitudes, but I'm hoping to discuss today's reality since that's the point of contention.
"I think most of what you're seeing is that it generally sucks to be poor and rural, full stop"
You're right that this is most of it. But I believe there is unique institutional racism specifically directed towards poor rural white people in particular.
The soft quota they face in employment and education and the hatred and derision uniquely directed towards them in particular (and towards no other group) from all cultural institutions.
The white quota in the workforce, for example, is there to be filled by inner city whites with the right pedigree and right social values. The white quota in higher education makes it difficult for rural whites without the same early educational opportunities to have a chance, whereas a black rural person (even if they're a recent immigrant) will have an easier time, all else equal, for no other reason than they have the right skin color.
From my perspective, this is evidence of institutional discrimination, but it runs in the opposite direction to what's claimed.
"Meanwhile in NYC, black people are 16% of the state population but 53% of its prison population."
I don't see this as evidence for institutional bias that exists today that's pro-white.
Hindus do better than Whites in general. Is the system pro-Hindu?
Nigerians immigrants do well. Is the system pro-Nigerian?
Differential outcomes are not evidence that today's system is pro-white.
There's certainly a historical legacy of slavery and discrimination that helped to create these inequalities. But it's not evidence for much beyond that if we're discussing the institutions of today.
> But I believe there is unique institutional racism specifically directed towards poor rural white people in particular.
I don't know what to tell you, man. I pointed out that the incarceration rate of blacks is dramatically higher in the US state that likely has the greatest concentration of poor white people.
> derision uniquely directed towards them in particular (and towards no other group) from all cultural institutions.
Sure, Hollywood makes fun of them, but I don't think that has a particularly significant material effect on the quality of their lives. (Though it does make them really angry and more politically active.)
> Hindus do better than Whites in general. Is the system pro-Hindu? Nigerians immigrants do well. Is the system pro-Nigerian?
There is significant selection bias here in that immigrants are not a uniform sample from their ethnicities.
"pointed out that the incarceration rate of blacks"
This doesn't change the reality of the anti-white institutional discrimination examples that I highlighted.
And again, disparate outcomes aren't evidence of current discrimination or bias for or against any group.
You could be right that Hindus do well in the criminal justice system because of selection bias, and whites do well because of specific pro-white bias that Hindus don't benefit from. But the burden of proof is on you to show that that's true. Do poor Hindus or poor Asians do worse than equally poor Whites? If you could show something like this, then you will have convinced me that the criminal justice system is pro-white.
The only actual evidence I've seen is that the criminal justice system is anti-Black, and that evidence has nothing to do with disparate outcomes. Beyond that I haven't seen any evidence.
I think it's both pro-white and anti-black. When you dig back through US history, you see plenty of evidence of both a belief system that whites are the best (and thus deserve to have power over other races) as well as that blacks are particularly deserving of their lowest status. Other races and ethnicities form a more complex middle ground. In many places and times there simply weren't a great enough quantity of those members of those groups for any well-defined cultural claim to be made.
I don't think your average 19th century Virginia farmer had a strong opinion one way or the other about the relatively inferiority of, say, the Sami people because they'd never even heard of one. Whites in almost all parts of the US by necessity had to incorporate blackness into their culture because—thanks almost entirely to the slave trade—blacks were so present in much of the country and were enshrined in its laws and institutions.
> As an example, in what way are institutions biased in favor of poor rural white people?
"Poor", "rural", and "white" are three ways to slice demographics and the way they interact can sometimes illuminate and sometimes obscure.
I think most of what you're seeing is that it generally sucks to be poor and rural, full stop. In 1910, there were about 13 million US farm workers. Today there are about 3 million. In 1979, there were close to 20 million manufacturing jobs. Today it's around 12 million.
This disproportionally hurts whites because black people have historically concentrated in urban areas (often driven by trying to escape anti-black racism). So it's easy to have a vivid image of how much it sucks for some opioid addicted country-music blaring coal-rolling white dude living in a trailer in Appalachia compared to some hip black guy riding the subway in NYC listening to billionaire Kanye's latest album.
But that's comparing different cohorts. The real question is what is it like for a poor, rural, black person? Black people make up only 3% of the population of West Virginia, but 28% of its prison population. (Whites are 93% of the state, but 65% of prisoners.)
Meanwhile in NYC, black people are 16% of the state population but 53% of its prison population. The median household income for white people is $80,300, for black people it's $42,600.
So, yes, I agree that poor rural folks have gotten the short end of the stick since neoliberalism took over. And their perception of relative worsening is something that we should look at. (I think it's one of the primary drivers of the Tea Party, Trumpism, the alt-right, etc.) While their anger at black people is misplaced and wrong, I can empathize with where it's coming from. It hurts to feel that others are moving ahead while you yourself are not.
But at the same time, it has always been hard to be black in the US and it's still hard. Here's a fun (spoiler: not fucking fun at all) guessing game to play if you don't already know the answer: When was the last lynching in the United States?
If you were naive, you might guess the late 1800s when Jim Crow laws were rife and the country was still coming to grips with emancipation. Maybe you'd guess the 1930s when the KKK was flourishing. You would hope it wasn't the 1950s when economic prosperity and blacks and whites fighting together in WWII should have brought us together. Hopefully no later than the 1960s when the Civil Rights Act was signed.
Actually, it was 1981. His name was Michael Donald. He was 19 years old and was chosen at random by KKK members angry about an unrelated murder trial "to show Klan strength in Alabama".
He was killed by poor rural whites who were this close to getting away with it completely until the FBI got involved.