"African-Americans For Obama"

[drblasphlemy.livejournal.com]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/02/obama_announces_2012_launch_of_african-americans_for_obama.html

I got an email this afternoon telling me about this new Obama campaign tactic.

How is this ok in America today?

How is this not racist? What do you supposed would happen if Romney announced a “White Americans for Romney”?

He’d be crucified yet it’s perfectly acceptable for Obama?

Please explain to me why this is ok for a black president but no white in this country could ever do this?

Comments

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> The subtle racism of lowered expectation championed by America's left wing and the dissolution of the
> black family that the last 50 years of social planning has engendered.

So then, 50 years ago, Black and white poverty were at per capita parity? Economic mobility was at parity?

No. A larger percentage of blacks than whites languish in poverty, and this was true before the civil war, during the civil war, after the civil war, and into the present day. This goes past farther than the last 50 years. To acknowledge one mechanism for before the 50 years ago, and a completely different one for for the modern era, lacks parsimony, is politically self serving, and should be scraped away by Occam's razor.


> Yes- http://www.jstor.org/pss/2566437

Did you think I wouldn't read your quoted article?

It DOES say that Black "occupational upgrades were larger than white upgrades on average". That is NOT the same thing as saying that Black Upward Economic mobility was greater than whites. The reason Mr. Collins is careful about his language is that it is very difficult to compare poverty in pre 1960 america with post 1960 america, because the availible historical evidence available is so different. Also, your point makes no mention of the other points encompassed in "the above" when I asked you "has there been a point in American history when the above was not true?"... things like poverty (indeed extreme and pervasive poverty might make upward mobility, as a purely mathematical concept, easier, since you're starting from so little). We're talking about 2 things. Poverty, and the ability to escape poverty.

> Poverty was rampant post-Civil War in the South till the 1960... hell... till today. Black and White.

There are black poor and white poor in the south. There are more black poor per capita than white poor. And the number of black poor escaping poverty per capita is lower than the number of white poor that escape. The number of blacks re-entering poverty (downward economic mobility) is greater than southern whites.

So, of course the rural south has always been poor. And blacks have always born the brunt of it... but somehow, magically, in the last 50 years this STOPPED being because of overt white opression, and STARTED being about "subtle racism of lowered expectation championed by America's left wing"

It.... is.... to.... laugh.

> I said, give me a metric for what constitutes the problem being fixed.

OK... Per capita parity of black and white poverty rates. Per capita parity of black and white upward and downward economic mobility,.

> The reason why I call this a game, is because there will never be a post-racial America. We'll always
> find a reason to say racism and post-slavery syndrome exists and affects us.

Essentially an un-provable assertion. But if we're going to speculate...

To my mind, I think racism disappears when race disappears. Assuming we don't have a massive collapse of civilization, and we keep our planes and trains and ships, recognizable races will over time slowly disappear, as the genetic isolation that created them and maintains them also disappears. Until then we have to be on our guard to resist and repair the damage of the racist urge.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'To acknowledge one mechanism for before the 50 years ago, and a completely different one for for the modern era, lacks parsimony, is politically self serving, and should be scraped away by Occam's razor.

But thing do change. Why must the same reason for black problems in 1880 be the same for 2010?

'The reason Mr. Collins is careful about his language is that it is very difficult to compare poverty in pre 1960 america with post 1960 america, because the availible historical evidence available is so different.'

Yes, but better jobs tend to lead to the former, no?

'So, of course the rural south has always been poor. And blacks have always born the brunt of it... but somehow, magically, in the last 50 years this STOPPED being because of overt white opression, and STARTED being about "subtle racism of lowered expectation championed by America's left wing"

It.... is.... to.... laugh.'

You can laugh. I see it every day. NEw Orleans school system is a joke. And you know how many whites are involved in it? The school board meetings may as well be NAACP conventions for all the involvement white conservatives (or white racists as some prefer) have a role in it.

'OK... Per capita parity of black and white poverty rates.

But you never have parity in any country with vastly different racial groups.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> But thing do change. Why must the same reason for black problems in 1880 be the same for 2010?

Thought experiment: Last week I dropped a hammer, it fell to the ground. Today I dropped a hammer, it fell to the ground.

How would you react to someone who said "Last week, the hammer fell because of magic. Today it fell because of Gravity." ?

Unless you can provide a good framework with substantive data that fits reality better, it is rational to presume that yesterday's cause an effect is contiguous with today's cause and effect.

> Yes, but better jobs tend to lead to the former, no?

True...but this was the 40's. Then end of the depression. The start of WWII, and the start of the New Deal. Unemployment dropped LIKE A STONE...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Unemployment_1910-1960.gif


This would lead to "occupational upgrades" across the board. Blacks would have been disproportionately effected, as blacks were disproportionately represented among the ranks of the poor and unemployed. This is not economic upward mobility as we have been talking about it, i.e. suggestive of the ability of individuals to improve their economic class by their own efforts. That's the way in which economic mobility is used to "indemnify us against the unappealing idea of hereditary class", and it simply doesn't apply to the post depression context.

We can talk about 40's versus 60's black poverty more if you like, but I think you'll be on disturbing ground for a conservative... after all, we'd essentially be arguing "Which was better for Black America economically, Civil rights? Or the New Deal?" ;)

> NEw Orleans school system is a joke

I don't have any experience or data there, but I'll take your word for it. I just don't see how in contradicts any of my points.


> But you never have parity in any country with vastly different racial groups.

And why do you think that is?

This is a bit of a tangent to the main thrust of this thread, but heck, lets look at economic equality in a racially homogeneous country, like Norway and Sweden. What do you think the gap is between CEO pay and average worker pay? How does median purchasing power compare? How powerful are the institutions or laws that protect the interests of labor?

The answers are Less, More, and Very. In that order. And one of the reasons why, is that they are racially homogenous... you know why that's relevant?

Because Capital cannot effectively exploit racism to dis-unify the working class.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'Thought experiment: Last week I dropped a hammer, it fell to the ground. Today I dropped a hammer, it fell to the ground.

How would you react to someone who said "Last week, the hammer fell because of magic. Today it fell because of Gravity."?

Unless you can provide a good framework with substantive data that fits reality better, it is rational to presume that yesterday's cause an effect is contiguous with today's cause and effect. '

The analogy doesn't hold because in physics hard rules exist. Universality. In sociology you're dealing with a chaotic system where there can be no exact law. What seem obvious one day may no longer hold the second. You can have rules and theorums but they can be discarded sometimes by new paradigms.

'We can talk about 40's versus 60's black poverty more if you like, but I think you'll be on disturbing ground for a conservative... after all, we'd essentially be arguing "Which was better for Black America economically, Civil rights? Or the New Deal?" ;)'

If only the New Deal was actually responsible for prosperity... ;)

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> The analogy doesn't hold because in physics hard rules exist. Universality. In sociology you're dealing with a chaotic system where there can be no exact law.

Can anyone talk about cause and effect in sociology (as well as other soft disciplines)? Yes,or no?

If no, then it is pointless to attempt to talk rationally about anything we do in a sociological context having any kind of effect. All policies would be equally (in)effective, so no policy can be preferred to another on account of outcome.

If yes, the analogy still holds. While such contexts are more complex, and do have many hidden variables, unless and until those hidden variables are exposed so as to demonstrate why the old effect would arise from some novel cause, it is rational to continue to presume that the earlier cause and effect relationship is still accurate. That's Occam's razor. Efforts to presume a whole new regime of cause and effect are claims which require data and argument. Without such, they are crackpot theories, often motivated by an ideological agenda independent of reality.

> If only the New Deal was actually responsible for prosperity... ;)

Prosperity for WHO, is the relevant question.