Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
laripu

Hillary Clinton was right

Recommended Posts

The article is undoubtedly correct:  The US may be the most racist country on earth and the old seem to be passing it on to their young.  We have been hearing for at least 30 years, that demographic changes will turn the country blue, as old deplorables die off.  So the culmination of that trend is that Trump gets elected as president !!!?  Obviously, the deplorables, their nutty religious leaders and talking heads are not going away, even if Trump does.

 

And yet, despite recent setbacks, the US has succeeded in stamping out the worst of Jim Crow.  We've had Affirmative Action, which raised many minority workers into the Middle Class.  And, despite spotty application, public school integration has become more common.

 

Progressives, in the US have been saddled with the Right Wing Noise Machine and the Cult of Ignorance.  But, as a general trend, we have managed to make some progress despite their loud, boisterous influence.  If Trump is replaced in 2020, the Far Right, as the article pointed out, will no longer have a central rallying point in their leader.  And they will no longer be empowered at the highest level. 

 

We just have to carry on despite this chronic infection plaguing the Nation.  The US was originally born under the influence of the overseas Enlightenment;  while, in Europe, many features of the Dark Ages still remained in place.  Since then, much of Europe seems to have leapfrogged us into Social Democracy, while we have remained more conservative.  That suggests it might take us a little longer.  But it's not inconceivable that the Far Right could gain national dominance, for a long time to come.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bludog said:

The article is undoubtedly correct:  The US may be the most racist country on earth and the old seem to be passing it on to their young. 

 

I don't think the US is the most racist country on earth. I think it has the most freedom for everyone to express anything they want to. So every kind of angry/ugly says anything they want to.

 

I think racism is an attribute of every person in varying degree (and nearly zero in some), and in great degree in about 35% of every population and every nation all over the earth. The reason is evolution. For an evolutionary period of time, angry hatred of other tribes was of survival benefit. So we've got it.

 

But freedom of expression is widespread, and what we see here is widespread, or soon will be, everywhere. And since evolution is a truth that cannot be denied by people's politics, we will see racism from all corners of the political spectrum. There will also be liberal racism, where it is expedient.

 

I guess I'm saying that I don't have much faith in the short term future. We must keep fighting the fight, voting against the ugly right, and it will help a little. But it won't fix it permanently, and we can never stop fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, laripu said:

I think racism is an attribute of every person in varying degree (and nearly zero in some), and in great degree in about 35% of every population and every nation all over the earth. The reason is evolution. For an evolutionary period of time, angry hatred of other tribes was of survival benefit. So we've got it.

 

During the longest period of human existence, there was no adaptive value to abuse or exclusion of "other" groups.  Bigotry against those with different physical makeup or ideas must be taught.  The innate loyalty we have for our own social group was engendered in the past, by the universally human need for social cooperation and mutual support.  War, during the Paleolithic was non-existent. And during the Neolithic, only among newly developing, permanent settlements.

 

Rivalry between groups perceived as different from one another did not occur until the development of agriculture, herding and the advent of the non-nomadic way of life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_warfare

Quote

this period of "Paleolithic warlessness" persisted until well after the appearance of Homo sapiens some 200,000 years ago, ending only at the occurrence of economic and social shifts associated with sedentism, when new conditions incentivized organized raiding of settlements.[5][6]

 

With the rise of stationary towns and cities, came the first economic divisions of people into classes.  The numerically smaller upper classes needed a way to keep from being overthrown and pitting one group against the other proved the most universally successful way to focus strife among different groups and keep themselves unharmed.  War was the other way.  Mighty rulers with conquering armies were, without question, to be held in almost godlike reverence.  Except for the means of dissemination, these techniques have changed little up to now.

 

Racism and all forms of bigotry are a race to the bottom for the many.  But racism and bigotry are powerful tools for a few, ultra-rich families, to increase their wealth even more.

 

2 hours ago, laripu said:

I guess I'm saying that I don't have much faith in the short term future. We must keep fighting the fight, voting against the ugly right, and it will help a little. But it won't fix it permanently, and we can never stop fighting.

 

As long as large enough numbers of Americans remain devoted to an ideology originating from the plutocracy, significant change for the better is unlikely.   But while the electoral system, despite its flaws, remains in place, there is a chance for unexpected improvement.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bludog said:

 

During the longest period of human existence, there was no adaptive value to abuse or exclusion of "other" groups.  Bigotry against those with different physical makeup or ideas must be taught.  The innate loyalty we have for our own social group was engendered in the past, by the universally human need for social cooperation and mutual support.  War, during the Paleolithic was non-existent. And during the Neolithic, only among newly developing, permanent settlements.

 

Rivalry between groups perceived as different from one another did not occur until the development of agriculture, herding and the advent of the non-nomadic way of life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_warfare

 

With the rise of stationary towns and cities, came the first economic divisions of people into classes.  The numerically smaller upper classes needed a way to keep from being overthrown and pitting one group against the other proved the most universally successful way to focus strife among different groups and keep themselves unharmed.  War was the other way.  Mighty rulers with conquering armies were, without question, to be held in almost godlike reverence.  Except for the means of dissemination, these techniques have changed little up to now.

 

Racism and all forms of bigotry are a race to the bottom for the many.  But racism and bigotry are powerful tools for a few, ultra-rich families, to increase their wealth even more.

 

 

As long as large enough numbers of Americans remain devoted to an ideology originating from the plutocracy, significant change for the better is unlikely.   But while the electoral system, despite its flaws, remains in place, there is a chance for unexpected improvement.

 

 

 

Some humans evolved past bigotry and others didn't. We Non Cons reject racial bigotry based on our morals and our logic. 

 

You and I differ somewhat on the nature vs nurture thing but the science supports nature to a large degree.  The rich exploit bigotry to keep the people divided and distracted. They use it to justify their wasted wars by demonizing non Whites and the righties fall for it every time with their terms yellow menace, Ni66er, dune coons, kike etc... along with their other dog whistles. 

 

Rich people are rarely good people. This has been known for centuries. They were the reason for the guillotine. 

 

We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish with it; now in this situation, the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people's enemies by terror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, BlueDoggL said:

The rich exploit bigotry to keep the people divided and distracted. They use it to justify their wasted wars by demonizing non Whites and the righties fall for it every time with their terms yellow menace, Ni66er, dune coons, kike etc... along with their other dog whistles. 

 

Well put.

 

1 hour ago, BlueDoggL said:

he science supports nature to a large degree

 

Evidence from the kitchen middens skeletal remains, artifacts and artwork of nomadic hunter-gathereres, show that for the preponderance of human prehistory, bigotry and war were absent.  In the sparsely populated world of the Paleolithic, clans and tribes were unlikely to encounter other groups different than themselves,  either by belief or appearance.  Instances of war and class bigotry first showed up with the development of agriculture, herding and permanent settlements.

 

Bigotry and and hatred of the other are not innate.  They have to be taught.  The rise of permanent human settlement (The Neolithic Revolution) brought about cultural changes which account for the advent of racial and ethnic hatreds and war as an institution. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_warfare

Quote

<snip>

Paleolithic

 

According to cultural anthropologist and ethnographer Raymond C. Kelly, the earliest hunter-gatherer societies of Homo erectus population density was probably low enough to avoid armed conflict. The development of the throwing-spear, together with ambush hunting techniques, made potential violence between hunting parties very costly, dictating cooperation and maintenance of low population densities to prevent competition for resources. This behavior may have accelerated the migration out of Africa of H. erectus some 1.8 million years ago as a natural consequence of conflict avoidance.

Some scholars believe that this period of "Paleolithic warlessness" persisted until well after the appearance of Homo sapiens some 200,000 years ago, ending only at the occurrence of economic and social shifts associated with sedentism, when new conditions incentivized organized raiding of settlements.[5][6]

Of the many cave paintings of the Upper Paleolithic, none depicts people attacking other people explicitly,[7][8] but there are depictions of human beings pierced with arrows both of the Aurignacian-Périgordian (roughly 30,000 years old) and the early Magdalenian (c. 17,000 years old), possibly representing "spontaneous confrontations over game resources" in which hostile trespassers were killed; however, other interpretations, including capital punishment, human sacrifice, assassination or systemic warfare cannot be ruled out.[9]

Skeletal and artifactual evidence of intergroup violence between Paleolithic nomadic foragers is absent as well.[8][10]

<snip>

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

 

Well put.

 

 

Evidence from the kitchen middens skeletal remains and artwork of nomadic hunter-gathereres, show that for the preponderance of human prehistory, bigotry and war were absent.  In the sparsely populated world of the Paleolithic, clans and tribes were unlikely to encounter other groups different than themselves,  either by belief or appearance.  Instances of war and class bigotry first showed up with the development of agriculture, herding and permanent settlements.

There was not much ethic diversity in those areas in prehistoric times. In those regions they didn't know about Africans or Asians.

 

I noticed something with gold fish. The orange fish school with orange ones and the black with the black ones. Antelope don't herd with buffaloes. I think bigotry stems from something in our DNA.  

Correlation is not causation. 

 

The brains of CONs are very different than the brains of liberal. Cons are fear driven and resistant to change. Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds | Psychology ... That is a scientific certainty. I suspect as human began commerce and civilization the fearful and more Machiavellian, greedy and dishonest thrived. War is used to transfer wealth to the top. 

 

MAGAts don't choose to be MAGAts any more than a person choses their sexual orientation. It's hard wired.  Gene have a huge influence on behavior.

 

The amygdala is an almond-shaped structure deep in the brain that is active during states of fear and anxiety. Liberals had more gray matter at least in the anterior cingulate cortex, a region of the brain that helps people cope with complexity. The results are not that surprising as they fit in with conclusions from other studies.

23 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

Bigotry and and hatred of the other are not innate.  They have to be taught.  The rise of permanent human settlement (The Neolithic Revolution) brought about cultural changes which account for the advent of racial and ethnic hatreds and war as an institution. 

There is a propaganda component but people with less evolved brains are more susceptible to it. Study: Conservatives have larger 'fear center' in brain 

23 minutes ago, bludog said:

You see how the MAGAts act here. They lie because they are cowards. They reflexively and irrationally hate non Whites. Some admit it and others don't. They can't be deprogrammed because it is how they are wired.  This reality can be a tough pill to swallow and it is disheartening to know that some people are simply no damn good but it is what it is.

 

Think of it like this. If there were no non MAGAts do you think the human race could have survived? I think that if there were only MAGAts the human race probably would not have survived but if it had it would have evolved into creatures like Ferangies. 

 

The rich and the wicked have been despised for centuries and for good reason. They won't change because they can't change even if it is in their best interest to do so.  

 

See the source image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially, I agree with most of what you say here.  The magnified fear component of the conservative personality is well documented.  And exploitation of of these exaggerated fears and base motives by the ultra-rich, has been practiced since the dawn of civilization.

 

 

But on this one point I differ:

 

15 minutes ago, BlueDoggL said:

noticed something with gold fish. The orange fish school with orange ones and the black with the black ones. Antelope don't herd with buffaloes.

 

Homo Sapiens are all one species with the different races varying in color, bodily and facial characteristics.  There is no shortage of instances where individuals of the different races and ethnicities are easily able to work and live together over long periods of time, without strife.  A stint in the US Army will demonstrate this to anybody.  People do not have to overcome any inborn bigotry in order to closely cooperate with each other.  Such familiarity tends to undo learned prejudices.

 

Orange and black fish are most often different species.  As are antelope and buffaloes.  But species which vary in color and other features are not rare.  For instance, African Wild dogs exhibit very distinct patterns and colors in different individuals. 

 

Image result for distinct markings of african wild dogs
 
 
As do Varicolor Golden Carp.
hirai:
“ picapixels:
“Coy stateside (via carolg2007)” ”
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bludog said:

 

What you quoted, 30,000 years ago to today, is plenty of time for a species to increase the percentage of certain characteristics, when the characteristics involve the killing of those that don't have them. That's not natural selection, that's artificial selection, very nearly selective breeding.

 

At the same time, cooperation, nurturing and love had survival benefit, so we have those too.

 

Here's what I contend: the more people there are, the more technology, cooperation, and intelligence become important and necessary. Over time racism and violence, while still around, have outlived their usefulness.

 

I'm definitely on the nature side of nature/nurture. You can try to teach a cow to do calculus, but you'll wind up pacing in poo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, bludog said:

Essentially, I agree with most of what you say here.  The magnified fear component of the conservative personality is well documented.  And exploitation of of these exaggerated fears and base motives by the ultra-rich, has been practiced since the dawn of civilization.

 

Money and power is a bad thing.  In tribal societies people like Trump were banished. They didn't tolerate bad people. 

22 minutes ago, bludog said:

But on this one point I differ:

 

 

Homo Sapiens are all one species with the different races varying in color, bodily and facial characteristics.  There is no shortage of instances where individuals of the different races and ethnicities are easily able to work and live together over long periods of time, without strife.  A stint in the US Army will demonstrate this to anybody.  People do not have to overcome any inborn bigotry in order to closely cooperate with each other.  Such familiarity tends to undo learned prejudices.

If people are racists and hold racist views it's their right I suppose but then they can easily allow their sick views to harm others the way they do that for me is intolerable. We should not tolerate the intolerable any more that the MAGAts defend the indefensible.  

History will blame Trump for the Trump era just as it blamed Hitler for the NAZI era.  While there is some excuse for Germans embracing Hitler there is now excuse for the MAGAts. Trump embraced them more than they embraced Trump. Trump knew the GOP base was every bit as deplorable as Hillary said they were. The base is immoral and Trump is amoral.

22 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

Orange and black fish are most often different species.  As are antelope and buffaloes.  But species which vary in color and other features are not rare.  For instance, African Wild dogs exhibit very distinct patterns and colors in different individuals. 

There are variation with in species but in the case of the different gold fishes, the are a product of selective breeding same as chickens. They can interbreed. 

22 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

Image result for distinct markings of african wild dogs
 
 
As do Varicolor Golden Carp.
hirai: “ picapixels: “Coy stateside (via carolg2007)” ”
 
 

Goldfish are a type of carp. There are different species of carp that can't interbeed with much success and if we took the milt and eggs of two different species and combined them, the offspring would probably be sterile like the mule and the hinny.

 

Humans vary in physical features and behavioral traits. We have different dispositions that are largely determined by genetic factors. Some of us have desireable behavioral traits and others don't.  We bred the danger out of wolves to create dogs and behavior among breeds varies greatly same as humans. Think about the kind of woman who might be attracted to a slug like Trump... She's be a shallow, gold digger. Her choice may be dictated by upbringing to some some extent and behavior. With the exception of Tiffany Trump the other three are lowlife trash. Crooked Ivanka married crooked Jared whose father was a crook. Will the depravity gene skip Barron? Doubtful. 

 

The Obama's raised great kids. The Obamas were hardworking people who pursued noble goals and did noble things. They are married for life and they adore each other. A lot of that IMO is in the DNA. Marriage for people like Trump is more like the business contract than a spiritual bond. IMO a large part of a person's character is genetic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, BlueDoggL said:

Goldfish are a type of carp. There are different species of carp that can't interbeed with much success and if we took the milt and eggs of two different species and combined them, the offspring would probably be sterile like the mule and the hinny.

 

This is true of the carp but not of the African wild dogs.  So the carp example was ill-considered.

 

But here are more examples of color variation in species, not intentionally induced by humans.  Differences within species allow for more rapid adaptation to environmental change.  This applies to humans as surely as insects.

 

10.1038_nrg818-box1_large_2.jpg

https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/variation-within-species-430852

 

 

Color variations in Venezuelan guppies (No, they're not trying to oust Maduro:D).

 

image.jpeg

 

And many more.

 
 
 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, laripu said:

What you quoted, 30,000 years ago to today, is plenty of time for a species to increase the percentage of certain characteristics, when the characteristics involve the killing of those that don't have them. That's not natural selection, that's artificial selection, very nearly selective breeding.

 

At the same time, cooperation, nurturing and love had survival benefit, so we have those too.

<snip>

I'm definitely on the nature side of nature/nurture. You can try to teach a cow to do calculus, but you'll wind up pacing in poo.

 

Since artificial selection yields much faster results than "natural" selection there would have been time for human nature to change in 30,000 years.  But did it?

 

The social nature of homo-sapiens has changed very little since the Paleolithic.  What changed was the rise of permanent settlements, and societal separation of rich and poor.  The rich could easily feel superior to the poor, who, however,  had the numbers to revolt.  The solution was to sell the idea of superiority among dominant groups of poor people over smaller groups.  The resulting divisions and strife provided the distraction that the upper classes need.  It continues, unabated, in the US today.

 

We are a social species.  It has been hardwired into our nervous systems from our beginning.   Just as in the distant Paleolithic, people still need the company of others.  Nomadic foragers banded together for social interaction as well as survival.  People then as now tend not to survive well, alone in the wilderness, with rudimentary tools. If we are isolated for too long, we feel the need to be with other people.  Being lonely has been linked to health problems, both mental and physical.

 

No normal person feels a need to kill;  periodically, or ever.  Most people go entire lifetimes without killing anyone and don't miss it at all.  Well known in the military but rarely publicized is the reluctance of soldiers to kill the "enemy" on the battlefield. After all their training and indoctrination, large numbers of soldiers shoot high or low to avoid hitting another person. One way of overcoming this unwillingness to kill is to dehumanize the enemy.  But oft-times, even that doesn't work.  No one comes back from a theater of war feeling traumatized that they didn't kill the enemy.  But trauma and guilt from having killed, in war, is a common occurrence and often lasts a lifetime.

 

Just as the vast majority have no inborn urge to kill,  neither do we have any innate need to practice  racial and ethnic hatred.  They need to be taught.  And similar to military indoctrination, the objects of bigotry need to be dehumanized.  American Indians, having no tradition of racial hatred, often accepted black people into their tribes.  They felt no aversion to the physical differences between themselves and blacks, as many whites did.  Instead, they accepted blacks into their tribes, as equals. The Indians were not influenced by wealthy special interests who sought to portray black people as less than fully human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found some possibility of history repeating itself in this piece about Pete Buttigieg the Mayor of the City of South Bend who is now running for president. I like him because he is likable and truly very smart. But I got to worry a bit as well because he really isn't pushing any thing thus far about policy. Something to think about I suppose.

 

http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/mayor-pete-understands-norwegian-does-he-understand-the-presidency

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2019 at 9:43 AM, laripu said:

She may have been politically clumsy, but she was right.The problem is the deplorables. They'll still be there and still be a problem, long after Trump is dust in the ground.

 

This DailyKos article describes the problem well.

 

I think the general point of the article is sound in that the forces that brought us President Trump won't disappear when he's gone.   The 'deplorables', as Hillary called them, will still be with us.

 

It makes me sad that so much more effort goes into castigating these people and so little into trying to understand why they are who they are.  It's far too simplistic to say it's in their genes or they were taught by their parents.  If either of those were the main cause, you wouldn't see such clear geographical divisions we have today.  The folks in the big cities have the same genes.  In many cases, they (or their parents) migrated from less populous areas.  

 

Instead, I 'd like to see more consideration of social and economic differences between urban and non-urban environments.  I don't think this is unique to the USA, either.  Consider France's Gilets Jaunes movement which is mostly found within the same sort of 'flyover country' that supports Donald Trump.  More generally, around the world we're seeing more far-right, anti-foreigner, nationalist, protectionist, nativist parties gain support and influence (AFD in Germany, France also has the RN, FvD in Netherlands, UKIP in UK, etc.).  

 

If these angry, poor, and disadvantaged people were primarily found in large cities, would they be treated differently?  Do we call the angry, poor, and disadvantaged people of Chicago's south side 'deplorables'?   

 

In my generation, it was the small towns that were drying up.  I moved out, but my brother stayed in our hometown (population less than 2,000) where incomes crashed during our lifetime.  There, Donald Trump is king (he won 75% of the vote).  My brother had the same parents, the same raising, the same genes...but his outlook is shaped by his experience with a dying town.  I know he's not 'deplorable' and he's definitely not racist.  But, there was no possible scenario where he votes for Hillary.

 

Today, even the mid-sized cities are losing ground while economic opportunity is concentrated in the biggest cities.  I live on the outskirts of a city with about 600,000 residents...and it's too small to compete.  My kids either moved away to find good jobs, or they stayed here with lower incomes.   As long as this trend continues, there will be more recruits for the 'deplorable' army.  

 

Ridicule and insults won't change how they vote, but it might drive up their participation rates.  If there's a way for Democrats to address non-urban issues, they need to do that.  If there's not a way, they need to ignore flyover country and just take care of the big-city base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2019 at 10:32 AM, Renegade said:

I know he's not 'deplorable' and he's definitely not racist.  But, there was no possible scenario where he votes for Hillary.

 

Today, even the mid-sized cities are losing ground while economic opportunity is concentrated in the biggest cities.

Two great points.  I talk to lots of Trump voters, and they aren't racist.  They just see things through a different lens, and certainly in some respects, I think their perspective is less sophisticated.  But they're not villains or deplorables or racists.  The splash that Bernie Sanders made reflected many of the sentiments that these same people expressed when they voted for Trump.  They don't trust the professional political class that's been running things for decades.

 

And I think rightly so, for reasons related to the second point you made.

 

People are concentrating into larger cities because our economy is becoming more concentrated.  Many industries have just a handful or fewer of big players that dominate their markets.  Smaller competitors who might live outside of large, expensive cities are crushed or absorbed.  The economic power of monopolies/oligopolies threaten our economic diversity/resilience, and ultimately our democracy.  

 

Chances are every single person on this forum has unwittingly signed away his right to join a class action against a big bank, just by opening an account.  "Don't open an account, then," say the free market fundies.  Sure, right.  Except that 6 banks dominate the landscape and in many regions people can only choose from among 2 or 3 of those, and they all have the same agreements, strangely.  No need to try to compete for customers by selling honesty, or dependability.  They all sell the same thing, exactly the same way.

 

I think anyone, really, knows in a vacuum that a monopoly is not good for the economy.  They are not good for innovation or keeping costs down or wages up, nothing.  And yet, we seem to be trapped in this trap, mentally, as a country, where people just disregard the clear and obvious problems that monopolies pose, and many of us reflexively side with business and some sort of "free market" ideal as being the cure for everything.  The oligopolies, of course, do a good job of simulating competition, which is definitely part of the problem.  Chances are all 5 brands of chicken at your local grocery store, for example, all actually come out of the same company, the same factory even.  But they appear to be different brands.  Choice!!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...