...in Oregon. Despite all of the talk about how Obama has a problem with white voters, he won Oregon, even though the electorate is essentially entirely white. So what do commentators mean when they say Obama has a problem with white voters?
What they mean is that Obama has a problem with whites whose ancestors or communities participated slavery, 'convict labor'*, lynching, Jim Crow, and segregation (as well as 'massive resistance'). One just doesn't walk away from that kind of brutality, even decades later. These attitudes linger. So why won't the media discuss this openly and honestly? This isn't to say that there aren't racists in Oregon; I'm sure there are. But there's a theme here, one that goes mostly unmentioned.
Note: I am not saying that if you support or voted for Clinton, you're a racist.
*Arguably, conscript labor was as important as direct violence for terrorizing blacks. Most black convicts were arrested on trumped up charges, such as vagrancy (which meant that a black person didn't have enough money on him). Many of the 'work camps' would be better described as concentration camps--the conditions were so brutal even flat-out racists were disgusted. Douglas Blackmon's Slavery by Another Name is excellent reading for more about this.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Actually, it appears Obama has an Appalachian problem.
Appalachia runs from just outside Montgomery, Alamaba, to just outside of Montreal, Quebec, and almost all of it is south of the Mason-Dixon line. There is a strong lingering racist sentiment in them thar hills. Which is why I left it when I was young.
So what do commentators mean when they say Obama has a problem with white voters?
I don't know. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Obama lose New York, Massachusetts, and California? Are all Clinton voters racist or just most of them?
Does Clinton have a problem with black voters? Why? Does it have anything to do with race?
This doesn't seem like an accurate characterization. West Virginia was formed by the pro-Union Virginians who refused to secede with the rest of Virginia.
Moreover, even in the North-East there was slavery. It just ended there much earlier.
Grackle:
I guess I need a geography lesson. If the Appalachins go to almost Montreal, they go through (?) PA, NY, MA, CN, VT,etc. (I will go look at an Atlas) Is all of that South of the Mason/Dixon line? Where is the M/D line?
Obama has, specifically, a problem with blue-collar workers who are not black. Some of this may be lingering racism, but a significant amount of it is classism.
Oregon has a median income below the national. Cliches aside, what is there that objectively makes Kentucky more "blue collar" than Oregon? Obama won among white <$50,000 earners in Oregon, but was obliterated among them in Kentucky. So it looks very much like this talk of "blue collar" and "classism" is in fact a code for something else, which is where we came in.
Oregon has a median income below the national. Cliches aside, what is there that objectively makes Kentucky more "blue collar" than Oregon? Obama won among white voters earning less than $50,000 in Oregon, was rejected overwhelmingly by the same demographic in Kentucky. So it looks very much that all this talk of "blue collar" and "classism" is in fact code for something else, which is where we came in.
I generally dissent when people start using broad strokes, but I fear there is something to it. There is unquestionably lingering racism among certain groups, especially the elderly and (for lack of a less offensive term) ignorant white trash. And the South has more than its share of the latter.
Moving out of the South is certainly one way of avoiding having to do anything about it.
The discussion of Obama's Appalachian problem does not make a simple claim of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, etc. Also, it applies to not only Appalachia, but to some places in the Midwest and West where some Appalachians moved, like Akron, Ohio, and (white) Detroit. Many of the Appalachian ancestors were small farmers who opposed both slaves and slave holders. The slaves, since they represented labor competition. The slave holders, as a powerful elite whose economic interests where opposed to small farmers. Sort of, a pox on both your houses. So, the ancestors moved to the hills and mountains, regions not so suitable for slavery based agriculture. Living in Appalachia also had a culturally isolating effect, so attitudes change more slowly. Many of their descendants don't want African Americans to be subservient, they just want them to have no power over their way of life, preferably by going far away. Search for Appalachia on Daily Kos as well, if you are interested.
Despite all of the talk about how Obama has a problem with white voters, he won Oregon, even though the electorate is essentially entirely white.
I'm sure that the scarcity of non-white voters in Oregon has nothing whatsoever to do with the long-standing presence of white supremacist groups in the Pacific Northwest.
Mike - I think you have it wrong, as do the commentators. First off, I will admit I had ancestors who "participated in slavery." They have very little to do with who I am. I also have ancestors who fought against slavery in the Civil war. I don't think they have much to do with who I am either.
I've been supporting Obama with my vote and donations. Obama did have a very small impact on who I am today - I was in a small discussion class with him in college.
I think Obama has touched on the real issue himself: poor white families (many of whom had ancestors come over AFTER the civil war) are resentful of programs like affirmative action that were set up to right the wrongs of slavery and segregation and institutionalized discrimination. This resentment has been exploited by conservative politicians in divide and conquer tactics. The difference between Oregon and Kentucky is that the standard of living has generally been better in Oregon and, because the black population has been smaller in Oregon, conservative politicians haven't tried to play up that resentment to the same degree.
Mike, thank you for very good article!
Joshua Zelinsky:
When I was in grade school, we were taught a lot of things which were, on reflection, either oversimplifications or outright wrong. One of those things was the very simplistic notion that, before the civil war, the pro-slavery south was racist, and the anti-slavery north wasn't. Reality isn't so simple. A white person in the south would almost certainly have considered himself inherently superior to a black slave, but he'd still be used to seeing them around every day, in the community, and considered them part of everyday life. In some parts of the north, you Just Did Not See People Whose Complexion Fell Outside The Pasty Side Of The Spectrum.
West Virginia, historically, was opposed to slavery not because they wanted the slaves to be *free*, but because they wanted the slaves *gone*.
Mike's characterization is inaccurate only insofar as it equates racism with the legacy of slavery. Racism is a much bigger thing than that, and the overlap between the two is a much more complicated relationship.