Posted on 06/25/2013 5:26:10 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The fate of the Voting Rights Act before the Supreme Court may hinge on whether it's right.
"Is it the government's submission that the citizens of the South are more racist than the citizens of the North?" John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, asked that in February during oral arguments over the fate of the Voting Rights Act, a 1965 civil rights law. Donald Verrilli, the government's chief lawyer, said no. Not surprisingly, the Obama administration was not willing to assert that citizens in Southern states were statistically more likely to hold racist beliefs. Without making such a claim, though, it was harder for the government to defend the VRA's requirement that some states—but not others—seek federal approval (which lawyers call preclearance) before changing their voting laws. The eight states that are required to seek preclearance are determined by a formula intended to pick out areas with a history of discrimination. (Places that go for 10 years without discriminating can escape the requirement.) But if all states are equally racist (or not racist), why not treat them equally?
Certainly plenty of people outside of the South are racist, and plenty of people in the South are not. But here's the trouble: there's social science evidence that, 150 years after the Civil War, Southern states do have bigger racism problems than states outside the South. And many of them are the same states that the VRA requires to seek federal approval before changing their voting laws.
The key study on this subject is new. In May, Christopher Elmendorf and Douglas Spencer—law professors at the University of California-Davis and the University of Connecticut, respectively—released a paper arguing that the list of states required to obtain federal approval under the VRA "remarkably" mirrors "the geography of anti-black prejudice" in the United States. "What we have generated," Elmendorf says, "is an answer to the question that the chief justice asked during oral arguments and [Verilli] was either unable or unwilling to answer." The answer, they argue, is yes.
Elmendorf and Spencer used data from the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey, which asked non-blacks to rank their own racial group and blacks regarding intelligence, trustworthiness, and work ethic. Respondents ranked their racial group above blacks by an average of 15 points in each of these categories, perhaps proving the Avenue Q claim that "everyone's a little bit racist." Elmendorf and Spencer, however, only counted a person as "prejudiced" if he thought his racial group was more superior to blacks than the average person—and only if he thought so in two or more of the three categories. That is, a respondent could think his race was a lot better than blacks and still not count as racist under their methodology.
The results were striking: the researchers' mathematical model suggests that of the seven states in the country with the highest percentage of people who are biased against black people, six are Southern states—Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina—required to seek federal approval for election law changes under the VRA. Arizona and Alaska, the other two states required to get the feds' permission before changing their election laws, ranked much lower in anti-black bias. But as Elmendorf and Spencer note, these states are presumably required to seek that permission because of other bias—anti-Latino in Arizona and anti-Native American in Alaska—which their study did not measure. (Besides the eight states mentioned above, the VRA requires some counties and municipalities in seven other states to seek federal permission to change election rules.)
The researchers crunched the data several different ways to make sure they were getting valid results. But "whichever approach you pick, the Deep South states are close to the top," Elmendorf says.
Elmendorf and Spencer's study may have come too late: The Supreme Court is widely expected to strike down the portion of the VRA that governs which states are and are not required to seek the feds' permission to change their election rules. If that happens, Congress will have to come up with new rules to determine which states this section of the VRA should cover. If lawmakers decide to embrace Roberts' implication that states with more racist attitudes should receive special scrutiny, Elmendorf and Spencer's study suggests they could end up with a list of VRA-covered states that looks a lot like today's.
Screw 'em.
I like NASCAR over other sports. So does that make me a race-ist?
If you are constantly concerned about your pants size, you are a Waist-ist!
If you no rike Chinese you are a lacist.
If you are obsessed with landfill politics, you are a Waste-ist.
If you love adding MSG to all your foods, you are a Taste-ist.
I read until I got my key question answered: What were the criteria for racism?
“Elmendorf and Spencer used data from the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey, which asked non-blacks to rank their own racial group and blacks regarding intelligence, trustworthiness, and work ethic.”
We need to consider that maybe there are actual statistically differences between races. If some accurately point them out (perhaps because they have more real world experience to hold a confident enough opinion to answer honestly in spite of the clear social stigma to state the truth) we shouldn’t define that as racism.
And those actual differences might differ based on region (blacks whose ambitious parents left the low-opportunity south for jobs up north might carry on the extra ambition, while those content to live in poverty and warm winters might not). Same for Chinese and some Southeast Asians, those whose ancestors escaped communism might be carrying the genes or culture of resourcefulness, compared to those who remained, giving us the possibly false impression that Asians are smarter.
As a lifelong southerner it has been my observation that some northerner s learned all the think they know about the south from watching “Roots” and reading “Tobacco Road”.
Mrs. WBill says that "Slow doesn't mean stupid". :-) Truer words were never spoken.
I'm the worst kind of Yankee, having moved to the south 20-odd years ago AND having had the uncommonly good sense to marry a fine Southern woman.
I love it, and I'd not change a thing. Moving to the south was one of the smarter things that I've done.
And, to get back to the topic, aside from the handful of fools that you find no matter where you live, the only real "racism" I've seen is southerners who dislike those of us from the north. My Mother-in-Law, for instance, still introduces me as "That Yankee Republican".
If pressed, I tell those who push me that I'm originally from Maine, and we generally don't like people from NJ, NY, Boston, etc there, either. :-) That usually breaks the ice.
That has been my experience.
“At the micro level, the racists in the south are now the ones with dark skin. Just like everywhere else in this country. “
How true, north and south and his been egged on by their racial leader in the white hut.
I’m not judging you. I simply observed your generational comment. Hate is learned and not inherent so there is some truth there. But once we are self aware we can overcome learned behavior should we chose. I love the phrase, “some of my best friends are, (black, white, red, yellow, brown, capricorn, etc.” If you are white, then you played in an all black plus one white band. You use skin tone alot. Why not say you dislike thugs and trash rather than associate a color. On the surface it seems color is a big part of the way you view things. I have many friends and never use race or religion to discribe them to others. Not putting you down just being a casual observer.
I think slavery ended about 100 years before I was born, soall I know is what’s in the history books.
I have heard that many slaves did not want to leave the plantations once they were freed, I mean where would they go? On the plantations, they had food, shelter, and relative safety. Not all slave owners were cruel to the slaves.
It was another time, today’s thoughts and principles were non-existent then. It was the way things were.
Insofar as treating slaves like “pets”...well I guess any ill-informed writer today could spin it at way for crowd reaction with their so-called “poetic license”, but I’ve never heard that particular observation. The democrat party treats blacks more like “pets” than slave-owners ever did, and, in bulk!
Regardless of all that, slavery is long-gone, but the idea of it is what keeps the race onagers in spending-money. They use it as an excuse when they don’t get their way on issues...like spoiled children threatening to “hold their breath”.
Like the IRS, they see most whites as “guilty (of racism) until proven innocent by a big lawsuit/shakedown payoff.”. But the kicker is, the most offended by things, like the N-word, are WHITE liberals, trying to make blacks think “they care” to keep them on the democrat plantation. More often than not, accusations of “racism” are focused on conservatives as a means to that end, and to win elections,
Slavery’s never coming back, unless Obama continues his quest for dictatorship, then well all be in that slave galley together.
> You use skin tone alot. Why not say you dislike thugs and trash rather than associate a color. On the surface it seems color is a big part of the way you view things. I have many friends and never use race or religion to discribe them to others. Not putting you down just being a casual observer.
Only to describe my difference from them. But noted.
Bump !!!
Thanks, some of my best friends are from Rhode Island, out state New York, and Pennsylvania...I met them in the military some 50+ years ago, and we still communicate weekly. The funny part ism the Rhode Islander has moved to central Florida, the New Yorker to south Florida, and the Pennsylvanian to Texas. All three of them now say “y’all” on a regular basis. I’m still in Georgia, although I did live in Florida for about 5 years, back in the 70’s.
As southern commedian brother Dave Gardener once said, “the only reason people live up north, is because they have jobs up there...you never heard of a southerner retiring to the north, have you?”
If I was black I’d sure want to live in the South. The harshest racism I see (both ways) is from Illinois and east to New York.
I’m glad you took it the way I meant it. I used to use color a lot too. But when I got around 50 in 1994 I started using the things I had in common with my friends to describe them. Like “Dewayne is a great hunter, veteran, and patriot.” The fact that Dewayne is a 34 year old Army Combat Veteran of both middle east wars and I am a 59 year old Viet Nam Era Airforce veteran. Or that he is Black and I am Irish/Cherokee never comes up between us when we hunt, fish, or drink beer together. I’ve even got a lot of my friends to quit calling me a “crazy old whiteman”. “Crazy old man” fits me better. Have a good day and as a casual observer you seem to be a good person.
FWIW, I’ve been all over the USA working at US military (AF) bases and have lived in NYC, Boston, and LA.
I’ve had one (1) racist event in the South, in Houston, where 3 black kids threw a slurpee on me as I gassed up my rental car before getting back on the plane at Hobby Airport. (They drove up, screamed “hey fu—g Joooooo” and launched a red slurpee on me.)
Otherwise the South has been wonderful to me.
In NY, Boston, wherever, racist cat-calls or whatever were and are a near daily occurence, especially if I ride the subway.
(I am Orthodox and you can spot me as Jewish — beard, kippah, generally Hasidic clothing, although I am not Hasidic -— my wife is.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.