Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Elite white hostility toward whites: I've heard a number of journalists today suggest that most white Mississippian Democrats voted for Hillary yesterday because they hate blacks. Comparing the state to Georgia, Chris Matthews said that whites in metropolitan places like Atlanta are "too busy to hate."

These attitudes reveal the hostility that elites have for ordinary whites. I haven't heard anyone in the MSM claim that some whites are voting for Obama because he is black, and certainly not that doing so deserves brownie points. The conventional intepretation is that they have overcome their bigotry, and are voting simply for the real person, whoever that is.

So, if whites favor blacks, they're not really favoring them. They're just finally becoming decent. If, on the other hand, a white person votes against Obama, it is assumed that it is done out of hate. An elite white gains extra status for being simpleminded and cynical about race issues. "I'm so morally superior, I even brainlessly trash fellow whites."

The elite never feels the impulse to explore it any further: maybe the white person voted for Hillary because he knows enough to realize that an elite black man is likely to be very liberal, very concerned about blacks, and very unconcerned about whites qua whites. When a white woman asked Willie Brown, the then mayor of San Francisco, about how affirmative action hurts her children, he angrily responded, "I don't give a damn about your children."

The white voter may feel no ill will whatsover, but has decided that a man like Obama is a bad bet--he probably will not represent my interests. It's the same logic as racial profiling: I don't have all day to learn about this man's true character, but his race is an indicator. And a black man's politics can be predicted much, much better than his tendency to break the law.

4 comments:

SFG said...

Interesting. I think the thing is that it's mostly working-class whites who identify as white primarily. A large part of class distinctions is distinguishing yourself from the class below, so you get a lot more anti-racism in the middle and upper classes.

That's why you had the anti-racist attitudes among Episcopalians. To some degree virulent racism is a result of competition for resources among working-class groups; when a rich man's neighborhood goes downhill, he can just move away.

Anonymous said...

sfg,

Due to the fact that "rich men's neighborhoods" are so often gated, walled off, and fenced in with armed security these days.........they will never really "go down" or decline. The walls assure that only wealthy will be able to live there, golf on the golf course, and swim in the pool. The only minorities these people see are extremely wealthy ones who are educated or the one-in-a-million professional athlete who just might live there, and even they had to spend SOME time in college.


The elite are ever-more-removed from the rest of society, and hence why I warn about this. As long as things are Okey Dokey behind the walls, they dont give a rats about whats going on outside of them. Like a medieval baron inside a castle with his court.......the fuedal serfs in the village down below can go to hell as long as the knights are loyal to him and the serfs unarmed.

Its a recipie for Brazilification of the U.S. over the next 3-4 decades.

SFG said...

You're right about the walling off, etc; no argument there. My point was that the rich have the option to separate themselves from minorities, the poor don't, so the poor tend to be more racist.

Anonymous said...

You're right about the walling off, etc; no argument there. My point was that the rich have the option to separate themselves from minorities, the poor don't, so the poor tend to be more racist.

In other words, poor whites they see minorities as minorities really are: violent, stupid, destructive and hateful toward non-whites.