In the U.S. we have a lot of problems that are really socio-economic that are discussed in terms of race. There are historical reasons for this and this is particularly true in the southeastern part of the country. When white people talk about those taking handouts or getting something for free they mostly are talking about poor brown people. This despite the fact that whites - due to being a majority of th population - consume a majority of the welfare. If I talk about poor people in a large city almost everyone will imagine a black person.
There is the perception broadly speaking that white = wealthy and black = poor. Blacks on average are poorer and are more likely to be charged with committing a crime but in terms of numbers most crimes are committed by whites and most poor people are white. In the 90s when Hilary Clinton talked about super predators the images were those of black criminals. When Reagan talked about welfare queens the image given was of a black woman with lots of kids.
I’ve felt that if poor whites in the U.S. stopped thinking of themselves as better than brown people, if they would stop believing the myths and media narratives about race then we’d have universal health care and free higher education. A former President from Texas once said
If you can convince the lowest white man that he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll even empty his pockets for you.
> When white people talk about those taking handouts or getting something for free they mostly are talking about poor brown people.
This is not my experience as a lifelong American with many white friends, family, etc.
> Blacks on average are poorer and are more likely to be charged with committing a crime but in terms of numbers most crimes are committed by whites and most poor people are white.
Of course, whites are a larger part of the population—60ish percent in the USA, but they undercommit crimes. For whatever reason (legacy of historical racism, poor socioeconomic status, etc), black Americans overcommit crimes both according to police data and victim reports.
Many are tempted to deny these facts as “supportive of racism”, but these facts don’t support racism because the variance within a race is huge and the overwhelming majority of any race are decent, productive, law-abiding people.
> I’ve felt that if poor whites in the U.S. stopped thinking of themselves as better than brown people, if they would stop believing the myths and media narratives about race then we’d have universal health care and free higher education.
In America, the media narratives about race are entirely sympathetic toward minorities. I would also appreciate a citation for the implication that poor white Americans are somehow more racist than other Americans (esp other poor Americans).
> In America, the media narratives about race are entirely sympathetic toward minorities. I would also appreciate a citation for the implication that poor white Americans are somehow more racist than other Americans (esp other poor Americans).
That may be starting to shift, but it is not true that American media is more sympathetic towards minorities.
"White Americans overestimate the proportion of
crime committed by people of color, and associate
people of color with criminality."
"Many media outlets reinforce the public’s racial
misconceptions about crime by presenting African
Americans and Latinos differently than whites
– both quantitatively and qualitatively. Television
news programs and newspapers over-represent racial
minorities as crime suspects and whites as crime
victims. Black and Latino suspects are also more likely
than whites to be presented in a non-individualized
and threatening way – unnamed and in police custody."
You can cite anecdotes and the person you responded to cited a study. The puzzling thing is that you choose to focus on the former and not the latter. You have been presented evidence that your perception is not correct. Perhaps study the issue further to see if indeed your perception is incorrect.
And this is the survey data on white perception of crime:
“When you think about people who break into homes and businesses, approximately what percent would you say are Black?”
40.4% Mean Perceived
31.7% Actual
“When you think about people who rob other people at gunpoint, approximately what percent would you say are Black?”
43.4% Mean Perceived
42.0% Actual
“When you think about people who sell illegal drugs, approximately what percent would you say are Black?”
40.2% Mean Perceived
33.6% Actual
“When you think just about juveniles who commit crimes, approximately what percent would you say are Black?”
40.8% Mean Perceived
31.3% Actual
Given that blacks are about 12% of the US population, these numbers show both that blacks commit a disproportionately large percentage of crimes, and that whites slightly over perceive this. It might be more valuable for blacks to focus on ways to lower the actual crime rate than the perceived crime rate.
It might be more valuable for blacks to focus on ways to lower the actual crime rate than the perceived crime rate.
Oh definitely this is needed. Poor city black culture has some very negative aspects to it that this community needs to address. This fact coupled with the environment of political correctness makes it hard to have honest discussions about race.
As an aside, at what point do we stop an interesting discussion due to a limit of studies or data.
If something hasn't been measured, or hasn't been measured since 2016, can we really just give in.
If the question is about media being sympathetic, in recent years, toward the oppression that every black person in the u.s. experiences every day. Does data from the 90s really trump no data at all? Isn't the question about recent times for which nobody might have evidence for ordering either case.
And if there is no study, can a sound and valid argument still be made.
In general I agree with the sentiment of your comments. I’m not one to dismiss a person’s opinion posted on an internet discussion site due to lack of cited studies. No one can provide studies to back up their views in every instance.
In the context we are talking about media perceptions. One person presents a study that provides an opposite conclusion to another person’s view. That study is 4 years old. Things may have changed in the intervening 4 years and arguments that they have are welcome.
> Which study? "Race and Punishment" appears to be a report/pamphlet by a research/advocacy org.
Thats severely mischaracterizing a summary report with many references.
> The anecdote refers to a real event, and real media coverage.
Even if there was a Covington like incident every month, it doesn't prove anything. Isolated incidents should not be used to make judgements or infer reality. Instead, use criminal justice data aggregated from around the country, like the report cites.
> Thats severely mischaracterizing a summary report with many references
Not at all. It's factually true. The burden of proof is to point to one of those references as convincing, otherwise you are just handing someone reference material and asking them to do the work.
weberc2 said that the cited paper/study/opinion piece was puzzling given one recent event. I suggested that weberc2 might want to further study the issue to see if his/her perception is wrong. I did not say that weberc2 is wrong. What I was hinting at is a larger issue facing American society as it pertains to media consumption.
In the present era it is easy for media to focus stories on a given segment of society. People increasingly are in “news” bubbles where their preconceived views are reinforced by the media they consume. I put news in quotes because mostly what we have now are entertainment companies whose business model is largely based on generating rage by framing stories a certain way.
I can see and understand why weberc2 thinks media portrayal is minority friendly. If I had to guess I’d wager that weberc2 leans right politically in the U.S. based on language he/she used. I think weberc2 is referring to politically correct speech and how we have gone a bit far in this regard when talking about race issues. It’s very hard to have an honest discussion about race in the U.S. because of this. I think weberc2’s view on the matter at hand is referring mostly to this or comes from this perspective. I could be wrong. This is all a guess on my part.
When I talked about media portrayal I’m talking about movies, tv shows, images that have been spun to give a certain perspective. Narratives that have been crafted over decades that change what images are evoked when certain phrases are said. For instance, it wasn’t until after white flight from the cities that “inner city” became a phrase.
My suggesting to weberc2 was to look into all this. In what ways have the sources of our information formed our views? Are those views correct? Does the evidence support them?
I do want to continue studying the issue, unfortunately there simply aren't many quality studies on the subject from the last two decades, and most are behind a paywall (never mind the replication crisis in the social sciences and the difficulty of accounting for the progressive bias). :( I could rattle off a list of anecdotes, but I doubt that would change minds and many would imply that I'm a racist for merely taking an interest and I don't care to deal with that this morning.
I'm politically center-left, and I live in one of the most racially diverse zip codes in the country. My "news bubble" is HuffPo, Vox, NYTimes, Guardian, Bloomberg, and WSJ (occassionally CNN). It's unfortunate that I have to defend myself against these implicit ad hominems.
I didn’t make any implicit ad hominems. From my perspective you read what I write and interpret it with an assumption that I’ve got a particular agenda. Here are some pertinent quotes from what I wrote:
I did not say that weberc2 is wrong.
I can see and understand why weberc2 thinks media portrayal is minority friendly.
If I had to guess I’d wager that weberc2 leans right politically in the U.S. based on language he/she used.....I could be wrong. This is all a guess on my part.
And here I switch from you to our. Since the issue does not pertain solely to you but to everyone including me.
In what ways have the sources of our information formed our views?
In what way have I engaged in ad hominem like reasoning. I have not characterized you as anything bad or negative. I did state that I thought you were right of center politically but in what way is this an attack?
It appears that we agree when it comes to talking about race issues. I wrote:
I think weberc2 is referring to politically correct speech and how we have gone a bit far in this regard when talking about race issues. It’s very hard to have an honest discussion about race in the U.S. because of this.
I don’t see how you can say you’ve been attacked or that you’ve had to defend yourself.
This was my mistake. I missed this bit from your post `and how we have gone a bit far in this regard when talking about race issues.` and thought you were saying something like "weberc2 leans right and that is what is wrong with race dialog in our country". My sincere apologies.
To clarify, I don't lean right (although there's nothing wrong with leaning right), and as previously discussed, I didn't make assumptions about your agenda--I only contextualized the statistics you cited.
I think you read what I wrote with some wrong assumptions. For instance you seem to think that my comment on blacks and crimes was a statement that supports a view of the legal system being racist. Nothing I said implies this or can reasonably be construed as suggesting this.
I said that blacks are on average more likely to be charged with committing a crime than whites. You agree with this since you mention that blacks overcommit crime. Obviously my comment suggests that the variance in the black community is higher than it is in the white community. I didn’t attempt to deny any facts as you put it. My agreement with you is right there in writing. I said blacks on average are more likely to be charged with committing a crime.
I don’t know how old you are but growing up in the 1970s and 1980s when crime was very high there was media narrative with regard to crime and race. This spilled over into the 1990s with Clinton’s remarks about super predators and the need for the 100 thousand cops program. The famous welfare queen that Reagan talked about was black and the image was created that blacks were a problem in terms of being a drain on the system.
Here’s a thought experiment. Have two black guys walk around a predominantly upper middle class white neighborhood walk around with hoodies and low jeans. See if the cops stop them. Have two white guys do the same. I’ll bet more times than not the white guys are treated differently.
Poor white Americans are not more racist than richer white Americans. Framing images and using coded language though allows poor white Americans to get a perception that the problem people, the ones who leech off the system are the brown people and not them. Using race gets people to lose focus on what ought to be socio economic discussions by getting them to think of race.
You should read about the Southern Strategy the Republican party engaged in. Here’s a quote from Atwater:
Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
Anecdotally I see the cops talking to white youth in "gangbanger" dress quite often. I'm not sure the lesson is anything other than "if you don't want to be treated like a criminal, don't dress like a stereotypical example."
Thank you for your comment. Why does this attire evoke the image of a stereotypical example of a criminal? Where does this stereotype come from? Is the stereotype correct? Does it have anything to do with originating with black culture? Have you ever met a gangbanger? I havne’t. I too have this perception of this attire being “gangbanger dress”. But this perception does not come from experience. It comes from media.
I personally have not seen white youth in gangbanger attire accosted by cops in white upper class neighborhoods. I have seen blacks accosted in upper white neighborhoods. I’m willing to bet that most interactions between cops and whites in gangbanger attire in white neighborhoods are much less intense than between cops and blacks in said attire in white neighborhoods.
Wasnt assuming anything as your position was unclear; I was just adding important context since your statistics weren’t worth very much without it (e.g., noting that whites commit more crime isn’t meaningful without the context that they are a larger part of the population, and very often it is used to mislead).
Regarding the rest of your post, I can’t relate to your characterization as you seem to have a very different, very negative experience with white people than I have had. Since we can’t do much more than trade anecdotes, I’ll be ducking out now.
I mentioned that whites are a majority of the population. I wrote:
This despite the fact that whites - due to being a majority of th population - consume a majority of the welfare.
I’m just posting my own observations and views. I did quote some very specific examples to support my view but what I wrote wasn’t to be taken as conclusive proof.
There are a vast number of articles and scholarly works published on the issue of race portrayal in American media. You can do a web search to find them if you are interested in the topic.
By the way, I’m upper class white. Have very little experience with inner city black culture but realize that even using the phrase “inner city” is pretty much coded language. When people talk about inner city problems inevitably one thinks of brown people. You and your friends may be exceptions to this but statistics and surveys show otherwise for most people.
We’re always 10 years from total annihilation and destruction.
I know people talk in hyperbole to make a point but can you point to any credible source in the last 30 years stating we are close to total annilhilation within the next 50 years? No one doubts the Earth will be fine. The doubt is whether or not human civilization will be fine.
I think an even better way is not even human civilization, of some sort is in doubt.
It's civilization where you get to walk to the store and buy a week's supply of food in exchange for money, and expect to do so the next week just as easily, which is in doubt.
But then he doesn't get to passive-aggressively whine about all of his piles of money that the government won't take from him.
Suppose you are right that he is being passive agressive. I strongly disagree with this assessment but let’s for the sake of argument agree that he is being passive aggressive. Why is his right to be passive-aggressive diminished? Is he not allowed to be passive-aggressive or hypocritical or any other negative view you have about him?
The correctness of his view that people like him ought to be taxed at a higher rate is not dependent upon his character flaws or lack thereof. The belief ought to be judged on its own merits and not analyzed based on whether or not his character passes muster.
Your position is consistent but for most people not tenable. It’s hard to claim that the “information” as you put it is abstract when it exists in video format that can be watched. When you make statement like
Moreover, once you start censoring you will never be able to stop.
Your position become less credible. You need to argue that the censoring that is currently being proposed or being done is indeed bad for society. Or that we’d be better off without said censoring. Engaging in slippery slope style reasoning is not helpful.
You think child porn is pretty much the only thing that is illegal to video? I think you should do further research on this issue. There’s a lot more than just child porn that is illegal to video.
All societies have regulated speech. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t believe this should be so. A desire to censor some things should not be spoken of as a desire to censor everything. Such hyperbole undermines your position.
With Facebook and Google speech is easier to disseminate. It’s also way easier to target said speech. No one can be vigilant at all times in terms of checking sources and accuracy of what we see/read/watch. People are easily duped. People are easily led to believe things that are obviously false. The anti-vax movement is an example of this.
We have entered an information age unlike any other in the past. This ability to sway, target, and reach so many at scale for so little cost has implications that may cause society to re-examine the nature of free speech. If Facebook let’s the floodgates open as you say then this re-examination will come much sooner and likely be the result of outrage and thus end up hurting Facebook in the long run. Facebook would like to prevent this from happening. Hence they take steps toward mitigating the public perception of Facebook enabling bad actors.
> Who decides what specific ideas should be outlawed?
The politicians who write laws. Lawmakers decide what should be outlawed.
I'm not sure why people paint this process as complicated. We live in a society, that society decides what is acceptable and what is not. You are welcome to disagree with the conclusion, but it's not some shrouded mystery how we make the choices we do.
"I'm not sure why people paint this process as complicated."
Reading between your lines here it seems like you have never tried to define what is allowed behavior and what is not and more importantly, tried to applied that to specific issues.
It's easy to all agree that pornography, hate speech etc. is bad. But what is pornography, and what is hate speech? Where do you draw the line...
On the other hand, the political process is unwieldy and unresponsive in this age of instant communication, which is why it's not working that great lately.
Well, society decides. Sometimes societies have a framework for deciding the grey area between individual rights and the right of society to regulate (in the form of government). That’s what political and legal battles are all about. There is nothing unfortunate about this though. What is good at an individual level may not be good at a societal level.
Do you apply this standard to all beliefs you have? It’s interesting that you wrote what you did when you could have done a search and found some answers. From the third link below:
Meanwhile, Americans’ international peers enjoy more efficient and reliable services, and their public investment in infrastructure is on average nearly double that of the United States.....The United States generally lags behind its peers in the developed world. According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report, in 2016 the United States ranked [PDF] tenth in the world in a broad measure of infrastructure quality—down from fifth place in 2002. That places it behind countries like France, Germany, Japan, and Spain.
How do you eplain all the instances of when government has shown regard for doing the best for its citizens? Do you apply the same logic you used here for government on corporations? Instead of focusing on the fact that it was a government agency in this instance let’s focus on the fact that without proper oversight bad things can happen. This is true for corporations, individuals, government agencies, non-profit agencies, and all other organized groups of people.
> Do you apply the same logic you used here for government on corporations?
Obviously not, since the article says DuPont did the same, but that elicited no anti-corporate criticism: "While the military has used the chemicals extensively, it is far from the only entity to do so, and in recent years, companies like DuPont have come under fire for leaching PFAS into water systems."
People like to blame capitalism for creating incentives for bad behavior when in fact the problem is just humans in general. Faced with certain incentives they will make decisions that hurt people even if there is no financial incentive.
Science gets it wrong sometimes. New information requires revision. The best we can do is go by consensus expert opinion. There will always be some probabilty of error but we needn’t be afraid to declare some things dangerous and wrong.
> There will always be some probability of error but we needn’t be afraid to declare some things dangerous and wrong.
But, who is we in this case? And what specifically are some things and how narrowly are they defined?
> The best we can do is go by consensus expert opinion.
Is that really the best we can do? How many times in history has consensus expert opinion been found later to be dangerous and wrong?
Should we assign that task to an AI or a customer service drone of unknown education and experience?
Or, should we assume that any reader of any particular "dangerous and wrong" things might be a better judge of whether those things are, in fact, "dangerous and wrong" as applied to their specific circumstance?
We is you, me, and society at large. Yes, it really is the best we can do. If a very large majority of the people who study an area of science agree on a conclusion in that area then it’s more likely they are right than someone who has no expertise in that area. Clearly if a large majority of the experts in an area of science agree on something then it suggests that if a person were to educate themself in that area to the point of being an expert then they’d agree with the conclusion too.
Non experts deciding for themselves what is right/wrong is a recipe for disaster. Peoples’ intuition is usually wrong without a lot of experience to back it up. It’s why we don’t let just anyone practice medicine or structural engineering. Expertise matters and the opinions of experts matter much more than a nonexpert’s opinion.
>> But, who is we in this case? And what specifically are some things and how narrowly are they defined?
> We is you, me, and society at large.
But that is not who would be passing judgment in this brave new world of customer service reps and AI. Do we just ban everything mildly controversial?
> Expertise matters and the opinions of experts matter much more than a nonexpert’s opinion.
Are you a qualified, cited expert in this area that you are holding forth on?
> If a very large majority of the people who study an area of science agree on a conclusion in that area then it’s more likely they are right than someone who has no expertise in that area.
There is some room for intelligent debate in nearly any 'consensus' opinion. Some percentage of even experts nearly always disagree with the consensus, and consensus has often been proven wrong. If society went along with the expert scientific opinion concerning eugenics, for example, many of us might not even be alive today.
> Non experts deciding for themselves what is right/wrong is a recipe for disaster. Peoples’ intuition is usually wrong without a lot of experience to back it up.
Non-experts deciding for themselves what is right/wrong is exactly how the world has existed for thousands of years. You seem to be saying that the answer is to just shut down this debate if it occurs among the great unwashed.
> It’s why we don’t let just anyone practice medicine or structural engineering. Expertise matters and the opinions of experts matter much more than a nonexpert’s opinion.
And, yet, we do. In most free jurisdictions, you are free to practice medicine on yourself or do design your own structure or home.
Of course people are free to practice medicine on themselves. They are free to make up their own minds on what they think is right/wrong. They ought not be free, in my opinion, to unduly influence others. At least not necessarily free to spout off whatever ideas they think are correct. Of course this quickly gets into grey areas and situations where the right amount of suppression of ideas gets tricky. It’s OK for government to get involved in this too. For instance we don’t allow peddlers of snake oil to make whatever claims they desire to make. This is a good thing.
I’ll restate my point in a different way. When government is deciding what types of scientific information peddling ought to be banned or regulated it’s best for our leaders to consult the experts of that area.
> For instance we don’t allow peddlers of snake oil to make whatever claims they desire
The important word here is “peddlers”. We regulate the sale of medical products. (And advertising related to such a sale.)
But we do not regulate who may join in the argument about (say) whether stress causes ulcers, or low-fat diets prevent heart attacks. The self-proclaimed experts have at various points in time been quite sure about these things. But thankfully their self-confidence did not result in a ban on people questioning the data.
I should have said speech instead of ideas. I think it’s clear from what I wrote what I was getting at. All societies regulate speech. I don’t know anyone who thinks speech should never be regulated.
'Peoples’ intuition is usually wrong without a lot of experience to back it up' -- people's understandings are based on their own and their social circle experiences. What's make you think its always wrong? Do you mean we keep our brain shut and feeling suppressed about anything that's not coherent with experts opinion? That's what happen in Autocratic government.
I never suggested, hinted, or implied that peoples’ non-expert intuition is always wrong. I never suggested, or implied that people keep their brains shut and feelings suppressed if those feelings are not in line with expert opinion.
Society should be following reasoning from first principles rather than relying on opinions of anyone.
Experts should be better at explaining the reasoning behind their opinions from first principles, but we should not trust them until they do so. Experts can make mistakes and have biases, often to new ideas.
My area of expertise is mathematics. A number of times I’ve explained to someone that the concept of infinite sets is a well defined one. There is a definition and it allows us to work with such sets. I provided the (from my perspective) simple definition and an explanation but to no avail. My point is that often times people outside of the area just don’t understand it. Personally I don’t care if someone doesn’t understand something but I do care if their misunderstanding becomes normative and endangers others.
Pre-internet nutjobs existed in all communities. Cranks and whatnot. This is nothing new. What is new is the scale at which such people can propagate their nonsense. The cost of convincing others your are right has drastically declined. The speed at which such stupidity can spread has greatly increased.
We have entered an era in which regulation of stupid, crackpot ideas may need to happen. If and when we do decide to crackdown on this it’s best to rely on expert opinion. This is of course just an opinion of mine.
I submit to you that the vast majority of what you believe is due to knowledge you gained form others and not from first principles as you put it.
And if that's not crazy enough, look up what they believed 60 years ago. Should those have been locked in, by government force? Or should we be free to mock the shrinks for their delusions of understanding, if we wish?
In an area as concrete and black/white as mathematics it’s still hard to convince some non experts that we really do know what we are talking about. Imagine how much harder it is in trying to convince anti vaxers to vaccinate. When society makes policy it’s best not to treat everyone’s opinion as equal. We are not able to always correctly deduce what is the best course of action on our own when it’s an area we have no expertise in.
I used be a fundamentalist, right wing Christian. Absolutely convinced that evolution was wrong. Eventually I was able to take the blinders off and ask myself, “Why is it that the overwhelming majority of people who study biology at the advanced level agree with evolution?”. It takes a great deal of arrogance to dismiss a conclusion that the overwhelming majority of the experts in a given area agree upon. Of course people get it wrong sometimes but we have to navigate life with imperfect information/knowledge. Who else do we rely upon? Keep in mind I’m not saying believe whatever an expert says. I’m saying that if the overwhelming majority of experts in a given area agree on something then that carries a tremendous amount of weight.
My wife is a psychiatrist. betulaq’s comment in the link you provided is one worth looking at.
But which year's crop of psychiatrist ideas should we enshrine in law? In 1950 there were rebels who didn't buy the consensus, and their ideas won, things improved. Why wouldn't this change have been prevented?
Or worse, how do you know that the evolution side would win the battle to be selected as the official experts on this matter? We have these fights over school boards right now, and sometimes the biblical literalists have more votes. Who gets to decide the how the head-count of experts is to be conducted? I think it pays to imagine these weapons being used by our enemies.
I don't know the solution to the anti-vax madness, but I think censorship is a much bigger battle.
I’ve only been talking about topics in which the overwhelming majority of experts in that area agree upon. If each year’s class of residency graduates in psychiatry all have different opinions on a given topic then this clearly is not in the scope of my comments. Also, I acknowledged that sometimes experts get it wrong. My point is that this fact ought not disuade someone from relying upon consensus expert opinion. Few people have expertise in an area of science and very few have expertise in more than one area of science. We need to rely on what others tell us to be true. I don’t know anyone who has personally run the Michelson-Morley experiment but I know the overwhelming majority of physicists agree the results of the experiment. I’m not arrogant enough to think they are wrong.
If 99% of oncologists think you have cancer then I hope you get treatment for cancer. And if 99% of them think option A is your best hope then I suggest you take their advice. You don’t have to. They may be wrong but in this world of uncertainty and imperfect information it’s the best option.
There is the perception broadly speaking that white = wealthy and black = poor. Blacks on average are poorer and are more likely to be charged with committing a crime but in terms of numbers most crimes are committed by whites and most poor people are white. In the 90s when Hilary Clinton talked about super predators the images were those of black criminals. When Reagan talked about welfare queens the image given was of a black woman with lots of kids.
I’ve felt that if poor whites in the U.S. stopped thinking of themselves as better than brown people, if they would stop believing the myths and media narratives about race then we’d have universal health care and free higher education. A former President from Texas once said
If you can convince the lowest white man that he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll even empty his pockets for you.