More racist: white liberals or white conservatives?

By Razib Khan | August 19, 2012 11:02 pm

Reihan Salam has a post up on the alignment of racism and political orientation. He begins:

Recently, Chris Hayes, host of MSNBC’s UP with Chris Hayes, made the following observation:

It is undeniably the case that racist Americans are almost entirely in one political coalition and not the other.

Chris is a good friend of mine, and we grew up in the same milieu. I can attest to the fact that the view he expressed is very widely held in the circles in which we both travel….

Salam then links to Alex Tabarrok, who uses party identification data to indicate that actually racism is split between the two groups, while John Sides suggests that there is a definite lean toward Republicans being more racist, using a few indicator variables. Overall I think Sides is about right, all things equal conservatives are more racist than liberals. At least in the modern context of the two ideologies.* I say conservative/liberal rather than Republican/Democrat, because my experience with the GSS data set is that ideology is a more powerful predictor of social views among whites. This holds true with the variables which Tabarrok and Sides query from what I can see; the gap between Democrats and Republicans is smaller than between liberals and conservatives. Why? There are still a non-trivial number of self-identified conservative Democrats in this country, as well as very well off socially moderate Republicans who vote their economic interests.

Before further analysis, I do want to admit one thing: “racism” is a subjective term to a great extent. I say this because there are very few Americans left who will defend legal segregation and white supremacy. At the other extreme there are some Democrats and liberals who would claim that opposition to affirmative action is racism. That seems too far. Between the two are a whole host of views ad positions, and there is dispute where to draw the appropriate line. But no matter where you draw the line there does seem a robust difference between white liberals and conservatives. The only key issue is that the difference, even if consistent, is often not very great. Sides and Tabarrok seem to have the right of it in relation to Hayes.

What I think is going on with Hayes’ assertion is similar to what’s going on with social conservatives who talk about “pro-family” views and attitudes. Very few liberals are “anti-family” (though some Leftist radials arguably are, insofar as they want to overturn normative understandings of the American family). And yet similarly very few conservatives are “pro-racism.” Rather, the terms have become implicit code among conservatives and liberals for opinions on a wide range of family and race related issues. Even if conservatives don’t live the pro-family agenda (e.g., Newt Gingrich), they believe in it. Similarly, even if white liberals live among, socialize, and marry, other white liberals, they believe in a particular vision of race relations. More concretely, conservatives who label themselves pro-family support a suite of policies which they presume support the values of families, even if their own families are a shambles. Liberals who oppose racism in Vermont or rural Oregon do so through their support for particular policies which they believe foster national racial equality.

But to some data. Replicating John Sides’ results with ideology, for non-Hispanic whites after the year 2000:

But I wanted to take the analysis just a little further than Sides. First, what about segregation in one’s personal life?

 

I did find a variable where there was a strong difference between whites by ideology:

These results prompted me to look for some literature in this domain. Here’s what I found, Is Love Colorblind? Political Orientation and Interracial Romantic Desire:

As shown in Figure 2, the probability that a White participant at 1 SD toward the liberal end of the spectrum would say “yes” to a Black speed-dater was approximately 26%, whereas the probability that a White participant at 1 SD toward the conservative end of the spectrum would say “yes” to a Black speed-dater was approximately 16%.

I think these results encapsulate the truth which Chris Hayes’ elided: a tendency toward racial whites consciousness, whether explicit or implicit, increases the odds that one is conservative (and vice versa), but it does not guarantee that one is conservative.

* There was a time in the 19th century where being racialist was the more progressive ideology.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Data Analysis
MORE ABOUT: GSS, Interracial, Racism
  • http://bluetenlese.wordpress.com M. Möhling

    > are blacks unintelligent

    Interesting wording. Anyway, it seems to imply that not subscribing to the blank slate theory and believing in IQ differences in, well, populations, is a mark of racism. You seem to accept this, which I find startling reading your blog.

  • https://plus.google.com/109962494182694679780/posts Razib Khan

    #1, You seem to accept this,

    did you read my whole post? “racism” is a subjective term to a great extent. the person who i linked to used this variable, so i did so too replicate to show that ideology is a better predictor than party. don’t try to read my mind in the future, you are rather bad at it. (no surprise, you’ve exhibited too much confidence in your social intelligence in past comments as well, though perhaps english isn’t your first language)

    * blank slate is normative left to right. Main diff is that right is less hostile to dissenters

  • http://bluetenlese.wordpress.com M. Möhling

    I know your position regarding the term racism and understood that it’s John Sides’ data, but you think he’s “about right”–followed by a qualification. I didn’t try to read your mind,* it’s about my textual (mis)understanding. You posit that it’s not so much about Dems and Reps but more about liberals and conservatives (no argument here) but you seem to back that up with Side’s data, which is based on at least (I reckon you concur) one ideologically tinted question, so it shouldn’t be reliable–so I guess I didn’t I get some higher irony.

    * I’m not a native speaker. I wrote “You seem to” as indicator that I could well be wrong, not as perfunctory caveat that’s not meant earnestly. I seem to be wrong, if I may say so :-(

  • http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com Lab Lemming

    How do you account for the social stigma relating to admitting one’s racism or appearing racist? Could it be that liberals simply answer these sorts of questions more defensively.

  • http://downfromthetrees.com jonc

    Following the categories “conservative” and “liberal” is, as you say, more useful than following party names. That’s especially true from an historical perspective. People who oppose change, and that includes any broadening of democracy to include people of color, have tended to identify themselves with the party seen as the conservative party at that time. People who advocate change have typically identified with another party.

    At points of transition in our history, e.g., the shift of white northerners to a more definitive anti-slavery position in the decade before the Civil War, and the shift of white voters in another direction in the decade after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 , we saw one or more major parties explicitly cater their message to attract those voters who felt, one way or another, that they could not remain in their current party.

    In the first instance, the Republican Party was created to attract northern voters who opposed slavery and feared its spread throughout the country. (The Democratic Party split over the issue. As it was the last unified national institution in the country, that precipitated the spin into war by guaranteeing the election of a Republican president in 1860.) Anti-slavery did not mean an absence of racism or the presence of a pro-black position, though. The anti-slavery constituency of the Bloody Kanas era, e.g., explicitly banned residence by blacks. The discourse of the time is jammed with references to the inferiority of blacks. It is the assumed premise of most discussion of slavery and the future of blacks in the United States. Schemes to move freed slaves to Africa were driven by the acknowledged belief that whites would not accept blacks as members of society. Use of the n-word was rampant, even in routine Congressional remarks.

    In the second instance, the Wallace presidential campaigns deliberately sought the votes of disgruntled whites, and, of course, Nixon’s Southern Strategy famously mirrored Wallace.

    Whether or not people who opposed expanding democratic rights to African-Americans were all racist is a matter of definition. (Are you a racist if you genuinely fear living in a multi-cultural society? ) But, certainly, some of them were, and the conservative party of the time, the Republican Party, altered and edited its core messages to attract their votes. And, it still does.

    My own opinion is that repression of rights based on race is, by definition, racist. Opposition to efforts to lift that repression supports racist laws and institutions, regardless of an individual’s actual motivations. Such transition points in our history compel us to make decisions, and only two choices will be on the table.

  • razib

    #4, replicates in iat. #3, the ideologically tinted question turns out to correlate well with other attitudes. Whether the normative view is right is not at issue. I would have used a different variable, but sides’ general conclusion is about right. At least iat validates that.

  • Hemo_jr

    The entire premise of this article is racist.

  • Yong

    I don’t know if the methodology used here is reliable. But I’m not a statistician or even a scientist.

    Speaking from personal experience, I find my liberal/hipster friends to be hypocritically racist, though by all appearances they are liberal (voting record, conversations). Simply judging by their tastes in music, books, movies, cultural preferences, etc., I find there is an unspoken racist elitism of the Western liberal type (not political liberalism, but cultural and social) in their choices. For them, espousing muliticulturalism and anti-racism is a badge of intelligence, sophistication, and coolness, but they only slap the badge onto their sleeves, not sew it into the fabric, to use a kind of convoluted metaphor. It is preached or implied but not practiced.

    Maybe I’m just imagining it all, but I don’t think so.

  • Charles Maclauchlan

    It strikes me that once again what is included in a study (and what’s excluded) reveal it’s bias. For example: while each group, Liberal and Conservative will equally applaud the successes of an identified group their views of failure are often quite different. Conservatives often will look for an individual underachievement while a Liberal will look for racism…the deck being stacked against the group. By far the most influential difference between private schooling and public schooling is within the expectations placed upon the student from the start. An indoctrination of reminders of expected success due to the sacrifices made by your family on your behalf vs an expectation that success really is denied you due to factors beyond your control.

    Regardless of race you are expected to be successful in your life… or … Because of your race we understand why you are unable to perform. Which is the racist sympathy?

    While a Conservative will usually move beyond race as a causative factor for problems and continue to look for solutions a Liberal will often rush to Racism as the only true issue and offer nothing further other than innovation stealing increases in governmental influence. The increased governmental influence only serves to institutionalize the imagined racism which caused the governmental agency in the first place.

  • https://plus.google.com/109962494182694679780/posts Razib Khan

    everyone, as i state above the term is somewhat subjective. i have higher stringency for what is, and isn’t, racism, than someone like chris hayes’. but, taking him on his terms, the above i think is the correct reading of the distribution of views. they’re not as disjoint as he thinks they are.

  • Karl Zimmerman

    M. Möhling –

    The question of whether believing the black-white IQ gap is biological is truthful is entirely separate from if it’s a useful indicator of propensity towards racism in America.

    Belief in the fundamental equality of human populations on intelligence is a central dogma in U.S. culture. Those who are most apt to consider alternate hypotheses will be more likely to have been a bit racist to begin with, because their lack of belief in this central dogma primes them to be willing to accept, or even embrace, statistical data which leads to a different conclusion. This doesn’t mean that all “HBD” supporters would be expected to be crypto-racists to begin with, but merely that those who already held conscious or unconscious negative stereotypes will be much more likely to consider the data than those who do not.

    As is, of course, the case with absolutely everything where research and ideology cross paths.

  • JasonM

    What I find significant is that “are blacks intelligent” or “are blacks hardworking” are always supposed to be taken as opportunities to demonstrate the respondent’s virtue, and in no way as subjects for empirical investigation, although as a matter of common sense there seems to be plenty of room to investigate them empirically.

    However, even the suggestion that one might empirically investigate whether blacks are (on average) intelligent or hardworking is enough to get one branded with the scarlet R of racism.

  • https://plus.google.com/109962494182694679780/posts Razib Khan

    #12, a i imply above, both the left and the right hold to the null hypothesis of no differences. the realized differences are given different explanations (e.g., lack of gov. programs vs. lack of free market incentives). that being said, the virtue point is much more powerful for the left. a larger proportion of rightists will accept the possibility of differences even if they don’t accept that position. anyway, that’s my personal experience over ~10 years (readers of this weblog of all ideological stripes tend to be much more open-minded to transgressive and heterodox views, but we’re talking about the common herd here).

  • Kevin Hilsey

    Genetically, it’s impossible to define people as either “black” or “white”, so an IQ test or other empirical data is impossible. There are certain isolated populations of humans around the world who have a few unique genes, but we are all part of one species and the majority of us share a mixture of genes from many “races”. Most “black” people in the U.S. have a mixture of genes, as do “whites” and finding a genotype of phenotype that is strictly “black” or “white” is impossible.

  • Randall

    The way this question is framed — not by RK but by the parties he is answering — reflects racist attitudes against white folks in the punditry. They raise the issue of racism and then proceed to look at the data on white attitudes only and discuss the matter almost solely in terms of whether whites are racist. While few people outside the far left fringe (in my experience) will openly argue “only white folks can be racist,” this idea does seem to be an unstated premise in many discussions. I don’t think it’s possible to have a very productive discussion of racism without a clear definition of racism.

  • pconroy

    My take is the entire study is a complete joke.

    Two things are immediately obvious:
    1. A person from rural North Dakota, which is predominantly White – where there are few opportunities to interact with Blacks – will not have invited a Black person to dinner recently, nor have a Black workplace – so does that make them racist??

    2. Almost all Blacks to a man identify as Democratic, and obviously the vast majority would not express negative opinions towards themselves – how is this accounted for in the survey?

    So basically you have 2 huge confounding factors – therefore the results are less than useless!

    @11 Karl,
    Belief in the fundamental equality of human populations on intelligence is a central dogma in U.S. culture.
    That’s such an incorrect and ignorant statement – and factually incorrect on both counts… that all human populations are equal on intelligence, and that it is central dogma?! The US Constitution holds all men “equal” before the law, not biologically…

  • https://plus.google.com/109962494182694679780/posts Razib Khan
  • https://plus.google.com/109962494182694679780/posts Razib Khan

    2. Almost all Blacks to a man identify as Democratic, and obviously the vast majority would not express negative opinions towards themselves – how is this accounted for in the survey?

    race was filtered for white (though they didn’t filter out hispanic whites).

    That’s such an incorrect and ignorant statement – and factually incorrect on both counts… that all human populations are equal on intelligence, and that it is central dogma?! The US Constitution holds all men “equal” before the law, not biologically…

    i think what karl means that it is a central dogma of modern american culture, from left to right. i think this is about right.

  • Isabel

    “#4, replicates in iat”

    How is the accuracy of these tests tested? I find the selection of faces odd (talking about the white vs black racial test, the only one I’m familiar with). The words also- 5 of 8 “bad” words are simply synonyms for bad (terrible, horrible, nasty, evil, awful) while only two “good” words are synonyms (wonderful, glorious); the good words have more distinct meanings.

    Also, I just took it again to analyze the test a little (took some notes and screen grabs) so was distracted and sporadic in input, much slower than usual yet the test accepted my input (so counted that test) even though it says it will invalidate if you don’t go fast enough (presumably to get at your unconscious bias).

  • pconroy

    @18, Razib,

    i think what karl means that it is a central dogma of modern american culture, from left to right. i think this is about right.

    Well your social circles may be different than mine, but from my own experience Karl’s statement is only adhered to by the so called “loony liberals” aka extreme leftists/marxists… but if I’m really wrong on this, then it bodes very badly for the US, that so many people are scientifically ignorant…

  • Randall

    16,

    1. A person from rural North Dakota, which is predominantly White – where there are few opportunities to interact with Blacks – will not have invited a Black person to dinner recently, nor have a Black workplace – so does that make them racist??

    I agree. It’s an example of how racial thinking has run amok to almost insane levels in this society, of people seeing racial significance in almost everything it sometime seems, even something as meaningless as a person’s dinner companions (meaningless in terms of a racism discussion). Your point about North Dakota is well taken. I’m white. When I lived Miami, I had people of different ethnic backgrounds over all the time. Miami is very diverse. When I lived in the rural South, I didn’t. I had mostly white folks over. Today, I still live in the South but in an extremely diverse area. I still have mostly white folks over, but not by conscious planning. It’s just how it has worked out.

  • http://www.Anonymous.Com Anonymous

    “Conservatives are more racist than Liberals”

    And? You say “racist” like it’s a bad thing.

  • https://plus.google.com/109962494182694679780/posts Razib Khan

    that so many people are scientifically ignorant…

    half of americans are creationist. are you surprised by ignorance? :-)

    #21, let’s be frank about this. the racial makeup of your social circle is only ipso facto proof of racism if you are conservative. being liberal is ipso facto proof you are not racist, so even if you live in vermont, or an overwhelmingly white building on the upper west side, you’re shielded from such critiques ;-) see the contrast between how the extreme whiteness of the tea party was mulled extensively, while the relative whiteness of occupy was not. as i’ve noted before i’ve been to social events in berkeley where people decry the lack of diversity in oregon when i told them where i was from, not even stopping to observe that i was one of the few non-whites invited to the party….

  • pconroy

    @21, Randall,

    I grew up in rural Ireland and never saw a Black person – or anyone who wasn’t Irish or British – till I was 10 yo and went on vacation to cousins in London.

    Today I live in Brooklyn, NY and have friends of all races and ethnicities. However I find I have much more in common with Caribbean Blacks – Jamaicans and Trinis (from Trinidad) – than US Blacks and often US Whites too. Just this morning a friend who had come back from Trinidad, brought me back a homemade bottle of Trinidad Pepper Sauce
    http://www.simplytrinicooking.com/2008/09/trini-pepper-sauce.html#axzz247Ef06YG

  • pconroy

    Actually here’s a better recipe for Trini Peppa Sauce:
    http://allrecipes.com/recipe/hot-pepper-sauce—a-trinidadian-staple/

    Enjoy Razib!

  • Karl Zimmerman

    pconroy –

    While I’ll admit I’ve spent more of my time socializing with the left than the right (it happens when you work in the labor movement), but I’ve known a number of conservatives as well. I cannot think of a single instance in my life IRL where I’ve heard anyone claim that blacks are less intelligent than whites, even among those who I would consider racist (e.g., people with inordinate fear of all black men, or who didn’t want to live in a neighborhood with any black people. Maybe some people believed it in their heart of hearts, but if so, they certainly did not discuss it openly. In a way, this isn’t surprising, since most people who I have known who have openly said racist things have been lower-middle class to working-class whites – and mostly none too bright as well. If you’re of average to low IQ anyway, it’s not as if intelligence would have much salience to you as something worth crowing about. Instead they focus on issues of crime and “immoral culture.”

    The HBD community online, of course, is a different animal. However, it’s developed into an internet-driven subculture like any number of other ones, with its own expressed group norms, which means I don’t think it can be compared with mainstream American society. As I inferred in the first post, I don’t necessarily find HBD conclusions wrong because they are racist (it would be ad hominim to do so), but I think it’s important for that community to realize they have developed the sort of “group assuredness” that Razib talked about the other week, and their own reasons for reaching the conclusions they did may not be any more high-minded than those on the opposite side.

    I would say there is certain types of “racist” behavior which is common on the left as well as the right. One common example is avoiding schools where there are more than a few token black children. It’s hard to say how much of this is due to subconscious racism (“if there are so many black kids, something must be wrong with the school!”) and how much of this is due to idiotic blank slatism (comparing aggregate scores at a racially-mixed and a white school will almost always make the white school look better, even if the mixed school has better outcomes for the white students).

    More generally –

    One of the top things that makes me think that racism is still alive and well in the U.S. (if I can cross a line here) is “interracial porn” – particularly the tremendous number of stories which involve white men watching their wives be cuckolded – and impregnated – by black men. I can only assume it’s because there are still segments of white culture which find interracial sex a “kink” in some way like gender transgression. To me, it might as well have been written for the inhabitants of another planet, because the whole “genre” is both unerotic and frankly repulsive. I would have expected more men would like to read impregnation harem fantasies or something.

  • pconroy

    @26 Karl,

    Well working in the Labor Movement might explain your somewhat oblique views?!

    I passed a local 24 hour grocery/fresh produce store in Brooklyn yesterday, that I frequent almost daily, and there was a loud protest outside of mostly (> 90%) Whites protesting for a greater wages and benefits for mostly (> 99%) Mexican workers. As I was heckled for entering the store by an angry White women, I said, “Sorry, I don’t support this strike – I’m a Capitalist!” She looked surprised, as I live in a fairly SWPL/Liberal area, and said, “I’m a Capitalist too, but think everyone should receive a good wage for whatever work they do”, to which I replied, “No, your a Socialist…” She looked completely flummoxed by that – obvious to me – observation.

    Socialists are generally all Equalists, which is another way of saying they are Marxist by another name. To them, any inequality must be “corrected” by government intervention, even if such correction means one group is penalized unfairly for the sake of another group.

    BTW, I don’t know what your comments about porn are getting at??

  • http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-detroit/dan-poole Dan Poole

    Very fascinating post, Mr. Khan. Quite frankly, the only reason so many of my fellow conservatives (I call myself a Conservatarian, FWTW) are up in arms over the comment by Chris Hayes is because they’ve been trained like Pavlov’s dog to go on the defensive whenever they are accused of being racist. I’m not saying conservatives should embrace the term, I’m saying their response when they’re called racists should be “so what?” Here’s why:

    http://www.examiner.com/article/why-racism-isn-t-evil

  • Karl Zimmerman

    pconroy –

    I think it’s unfair to say that socialism is about equality first and foremost – I’ve always considered a focus on equality to be more of a Kensyian to social democrat concern. Socialism is about who has control of the means of production – the capitalist class or the laboring class? There is usually desire for less inequality, but this springs from the desire to expropriate the ill-gotten gains of the capitalist class, not because there is a fundamental belief that the capitalist is in all things, equal to every member of the working class.

    Speaking as a rather heterodox libertarian socialist, if I were to draw up an ideal society from scratch, I wouldn’t care much about a moderate gap between the wealthy and poor, except insofar as it harms social cohesion and disrupts the political system. Instead, I’d focus on replacing the authoritarian core of the employer-employee relationship with something more compatible with the values we hold in esteem in the public sphere.

    I realize the porn thing was a huge aside, perhaps I shouldn’t have posted it. My point is only if people think the idea of white women getting impregnated by black men is enough of a moral transgression that it’s a very popular kink, there must be a lot of Americans who still hold somewhat racist views in private.

  • Anthony

    Karl Z – I think you’re right about the popularity of interracial porn pointing to some level of social racism in our society, though there’s probably a lag, as one’s taboos are formed when young, and someone brought up by racist parents may find interracial porn (or sex) more exciting because it’s transgressing their parents’ values, even though the person isn’t really racist themselves. However, the existence of any particular sort of porn doesn’t mean it’s attracting a majority of viewers – you only need to appeal to a small minority of the overall market for porn to be able to make a profit selling something specific.

    Regarding test scores, in my school district, the middle schools have widely varying overall average test scores, but when separated out by race, the white scores are almost identical, probably to within the error range of the tests. The pattern is not as pronounced at elementary and high schools, but it’s still there – most of the variation in test scores is demographic; within-group scores don’t vary that much between schools.

    Also, racists aren’t always known by their actions. My boss is a racist, in that grumpy-old-man (Archie Bunker) sort of way. Yet out of 9 employees, for positions requiring an engineering degree, two are black, which is a very high percentage for our field.

  • Randall

    Ekk, I now know what “cuckold” porn is. It seems to me porn in general humiliates and de-humanizes all of the participants, women, men and gay men. But that’s a different discussion. Although, I will make this point. Again, if “cuckold” inter-racial porn plays on false and offensive stereotypes of the sex-crazed black male, it also plays on stereotypes of a certain type of weak white male with an undersized penis who can’t…keep his wife from looking elsewhere.

    The negative stereotyping definitely works against white men as well as black men in this form of pron, so if cuckold porn is in any sense “racist” — as opposed to just exploitative dehumanizing trash like all porn (IMO) — it’s equally racist against white men.

    I am reminded of that old feminist saw that porn exploits women. While this is true, it also exploits men, especially gay men who end up just as degraded in these productions as women do in materials produced for a non-gay audience. (See Camile Paglia.)

    Leftists generally only see exploitation when it conforms to narrative (women or blacks).

  • Solis

    #23

    “being liberal is ipso facto proof you are not racist, so even if you live in vermont, or an overwhelmingly white building on the upper west side, you’re shielded from such critiques”

    There’s the stereotype that leftists that always whine about racism and race relations, e.g. white privilege, mostly come from white suburbs with little interaction with minorities. From what I’ve seen it’s a factual stereotype, somewhat.

  • Kiwiguy

    ***but if I’m really wrong on this, then it bodes very badly for the US, that so many people are scientifically ignorant***

    @ 16, PC Conroy

    Look at the explanations given whenever there is a report on educational or other socio-economic disparities amongst ethnic groups. The starting point is that groups should be equal, so something must be amiss. In NZ we’ve just had our Human Rights Commission issue a report noting different group outcomes in imprisonmnent, health and eduction. This is apparently evidence of “structural discrimination”.

    Although, in terms of the US the Snyderman & Rothman survey results would suggest that privately a significant number of academics do consider environmental _and_ genetic variation is a factor in such disparities.

  • https://plus.google.com/109962494182694679780/posts Razib Khan

    #32, my experience too. but further exploration of data on my part suggests that this might not be right.

    How is the accuracy of these tests tested?

    many psychologists are skeptical of iat. as i said, subjective domain….

  • ActionsVsWords

    “Attitude Toward Close Relatives Marrying Black”

    I find this question particularly amusing. While I can understand how it would get at one’s tolerance and generational issues (typically parents disapproving of their children’s choices)… I can’t help but feel that it’s written perfectly for the sort of liberal mind that has social utopia and the great mixing of races at the surface, but which readily rationalizes one’s own choices to marry closer to one’s birth culture.

    This gets at the issue Liberals are oft accused of: they have no problem spending OTHER people’s money. Well, can it not be said that it’s easier to socially engineer someone else’s choices versus one’s own.

    The most obnoxiously liberal person I’ve met, cultured and brilliant, made a big show of dating the rainbow in college, but ultimately married someone who was a virtual twin. Profess outcrossing, practice inbreeding.

    This question seems to get at the same issue. True racism? probably not. Racial-posturing? Certainly.

  • john

    ” i have higher stringency for what is, and isn’t, racism”

    So Razib, what is and is not racism for you?

  • pconroy

    @33, Kiwiguy,

    Mt first cousin married a farmer in rural North Island NZ – near some volcano or other – and she is a high school teacher, and reports a lot of problem and unruly behavior from Maoris, and says that they are almost always the class troublemakers – so she hates trying to teach them and is even considering quitting her job, due to this.

  • http://lithopanspermia.blogspot.com Hugo

    Very, very interesting post. Thank you; it’s nice to see someone with some actual data on the subject.

  • Matthew Stevens

    Yeah, I would suggest that the racial composition of the workplace is irrelevant. It says more about where you live (city or country, east or west, north or south) and your work sector (public – including military – or private). I work in government in New York City, so my workplace is half black. I might find this intolerable if I was a hard-core racist, but for the most part it doesn’t tell you anything.

  • Ed

    Well working in the Labor Movement might explain your somewhat oblique views?!
    I passed a local 24 hour grocery/fresh produce store in Brooklyn yesterday, that I frequent almost daily, and there was a loud protest outside of mostly (> 90%) Whites protesting for a greater wages and benefits for mostly (> 99%) Mexican workers. As I was heckled for entering the store by an angry White women, I said, “Sorry, I don’t support this strike – I’m a Capitalist!” She looked surprised, as I live in a fairly SWPL/Liberal area, and said, “I’m a Capitalist too, but think everyone should receive a good wage for whatever work they do”, to which I replied, “No, your a Socialist…” She looked completely flummoxed by that – obvious to me – observation.
    Socialists are generally all Equalists, which is another way of saying they are Marxist by another name. To them, any inequality must be “corrected” by government intervention, even if such correction means one group is penalized unfairly for the sake of another group.
    BTW, I don’t know what your comments about porn are getting at??”

    “Your a socialist!”
    Because demanding a livable wage makes you a pinko commie, anti-american, nazi.

    I wouldn’t call myself a socialist, but selfish economic behavior on the part of our leaders is a huge problem. How can you deny that the heart of democracy is power all citizens to determine the nations future. This is shared with socialism right?

  • http://www.russellturpin.com/ Russell

    It would be interesting to ask Americans how many Americans they thought were racist, and then break that response down by political outlook. I suspect, in various ways, most of us are. Blacks, included. And in some of the important ways, I suspect it’s hard for us each to know the extent of our own racism without being subjected to some psychological trickery and testing.

    What strikes me as different between liberals and conservatives is not their susceptibility to racism, but their understanding of and political response to racism.

  • Luke Raines

    “Racism” is just a ploy concocted to stop whites from criticizing non-whites. If whites are so racist then why do so many non-whites want to live in predominantly white nations? In general, the best places in the world to live are the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand.

  • https://plus.google.com/109962494182694679780/posts Razib Khan

    #42, want to bet money on that? i’m pretty sure that in the USA more whites make accusations against other whites in raw numbers, without any nonwhites even present. positional tactic. also,

    If whites are so racist then why do so many non-whites want to live in predominantly white nations? In general, the best places in the world to live are the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand.

    the two sentences have nothing to do with each other. a nice line of argument to confuse the stupid, but totally superficial on even the merest of inspection. the reason sri lankans and filipinos migrate in large numbers to the arabian peninsula has nothing to do with how non-racist arabs are. on the contrary. in fact, my own personal experience is that many colored immigrants have irrational perceptions of just how racist the USA is (unlike most i have lived in very rural overwhelmingly white areas).

    the quality of comments on this thread is dropping. probably should have closed it when paul started accusing people of being socialists :=)

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Gene Expression

This blog is about evolution, genetics, genomics and their interstices. Please beware that comments are aggressively moderated. Uncivil or churlish comments will likely get you banned immediately, so make any contribution count!

About Razib Khan

I have degrees in biology and biochemistry, a passion for genetics, history, and philosophy, and shrimp is my favorite food. In relation to nationality I'm a American Northwesterner, in politics I'm a reactionary, and as for religion I have none (I'm an atheist). If you want to know more, see the links at http://www.razib.com

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

RSS Razib’s Pinboard

Edifying books

Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »