Remember guys, it's not about racism

[ksen]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/07/14/3680185/food-stamp-oklahoma-gop/

NOW thus endeth today's lesson.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Post-racial America.

The GOP really knows how to reach out to broaden the base!

 

[braces_for_impact]

The problem with all the right wing racists in this country, is that they often don't think they're racist. Self examination: fail.

 

[thebeave]

OK, I'll bite. What does this have to do about race? Do I need to read between the lines, or are there secret racist GOP code words in the text that I'm not aware of?

 

[none]

and there is a hunting season for bears, open season all year long on humans

 

[Derec]

OK, I'll bite. What does this have to do about race?

Everything. It compares the human race to non-human animals. You know, as if the whole evolution thing was a real thing and we were actually related to them ...

Do I need to read between the lines, or are there secret racist GOP code words in the text that I'm not aware of?

According to the left, pretty much everything (like me saying "human race") is a "racist micoraggression" these days.
UC teaching faculty members not to criticize race-based affirmative action, call America ‘melting pot,’ and more

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with all the right wing racists in this country, is that they often don't think they're racist. Self examination: fail.

The problem with the left wing racists is that they view every disagreement as "racist".

 

[SimpleDon]

OK, I'll bite. What does this have to do about race? Do I need to read between the lines, or are there secret racist GOP code words in the text that I'm not aware of?

Yes, I agree. It is class warfare against the poor.

The connection to racism depends on circular logic between the GOP comparing the poor to animals and racists comparing blacks to apes. Apes are animals therefore the rather tenuous loop is closed. A rather straightforward piece of class warfare bigotry against the poor is assumed to be racism as well.

Silly liberals.

 

[SimpleDon]

Everything. It compares the human race to non-human animals. You know, as if the whole evolution thing was a real thing and we were actually related to them ...

Do I need to read between the lines, or are there secret racist GOP code words in the text that I'm not aware of?

According to the left, pretty much everything (like me saying "human race") is a "racist micoraggression" these days.
UC teaching faculty members not to criticize race-based affirmative action, call America ‘melting pot,’ and more

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with all the right wing racists in this country, is that they often don't think they're racist. Self examination: fail.

The problem with the left wing racists is that they view every disagreement as "racist".

Obviously they could take your example of not reading too much into other people's motives to heart.

How would you then characterize the statement from the Oklahoma GOP?

Is it a reasonable one?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Everything. It compares the human race to non-human animals. You know, as if the whole evolution thing was a real thing and we were actually related to them ...

Do I need to read between the lines, or are there secret racist GOP code words in the text that I'm not aware of?

According to the left, pretty much everything (like me saying "human race") is a "racist micoraggression" these days.
UC teaching faculty members not to criticize race-based affirmative action, call America ‘melting pot,’ and more

Conservolibertarian prof completely misses the point and tries to play the martyr. But it looks like hyperbolic butthurt is his thing.

 

[Sarpedon]

OK, I'll bite. What does this have to do about race? Do I need to read between the lines, or are there secret racist GOP code words in the text that I'm not aware of?

Yes there is. The GOP has implicitly linked poverty to race, to the point where poor whites will vote against things that will benefit themselves because they will also benefit blacks. Take this quote from former GOP strategist Lee Atwater:

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.

When the GOP puts the ideas of poverty and animals in the same paragraph, they are absolutely sending a racially coded signal. And the proof is in the pudding: Poor whites voting against things that they themselves could (and sometimes DO) benefit from.

There are so many words that are racial codes: "Urban" in any other context than zoning. (Rick Santorum frightened voters by claiming that Obama was going to attack them with an army of 'urban youths') Hell 'youth crime,' doesn't mean 'white youth crime.' "Inner city" is another famous one. They pretend that this is a neutral term used by planners. It isn't. And of course "Immigrant." They aren't talking about european immigrants when they use that term. I hope I don't need to talk about 'thug.'

 

[Bronzeage]

OK, I'll bite. What does this have to do about race? Do I need to read between the lines, or are there secret racist GOP code words in the text that I'm not aware of?

We have to pretend this statement was issued in a vacuum, without context. Perhaps this makes it a little clearer:

 

[braces_for_impact]

OK, I'll bite. What does this have to do about race? Do I need to read between the lines, or are there secret racist GOP code words in the text that I'm not aware of?

We have to pretend this statement was issued in a vacuum, without context. Perhaps this makes it a little clearer:
View attachment 3480

Right, like every other instance in the history of...ever.

 

[Toni]

How about we start acknowledging that the majority of the recipients of food stamps are white?

And children.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yes there is. The GOP has implicitly linked poverty to race, to the point where poor whites will vote against things that will benefit themselves because they will also benefit blacks. Take this quote from former GOP strategist Lee Atwater:

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.

When the GOP puts the ideas of poverty and animals in the same paragraph, they are absolutely sending a racially coded signal. And the proof is in the pudding: Poor whites voting against things that they themselves could (and sometimes DO) benefit from.

There are so many words that are racial codes: "Urban" in any other context than zoning. (Rick Santorum frightened voters by claiming that Obama was going to attack them with an army of 'urban youths') Hell 'youth crime,' doesn't mean 'white youth crime.' "Inner city" is another famous one. They pretend that this is a neutral term used by planners. It isn't. And of course "Immigrant." They aren't talking about european immigrants when they use that term. I hope I don't need to talk about 'thug.'

Preface: I support welfare programs. I acknowledge the reality is widespread racism in GOP policies and in the minds of most GOP voters. I realize that the party often uses racism as a tool to increase opposition to welfare among whites who might otherwise, for self-serving reasons, favor public assistance programs.
However, the statement in the OP by the GOP is not in itself racist or even classist. On its own, it is a reasonable observation.

The GOP is not against Welfare merely because it also helps blacks. They are against welfare for any poor people. They are in principle against any wealth redistribution from rich to poor. Also, they regularly use a "dependency" argument against welfare without any analogy to animals. Many conservatives sincerely think that unconditional assistance will foster dependence and impede self-improvement efforts to improve one's outcomes.

The reality is that science is on their side on that point.
It is quite legit of them to point out that liberals who reject this notion, fully accept it in regards to all non-human animals. Since 99% of what is true of other mammals is true of humans, it is incoherent to acknowledge such dependency creating effects for all other animals, but then act like humans are magically different and thus this effect does not apply. Humans are nothing but animals, not just the poor, but all humans. Increased dependency caused by food provided without any particular behavioral action to trigger it is very much a reality for humans. Although we also learn via other mechanisms, we still get the vast majority of our learning from simple stimulus-response associations the same as rats do.

Everything known about learning and behavior in the cognitive sciences predicts that people who get public assistance that is not directly contingent of producing particular work-related behaviors will become increasingly less likely to feel motivated to engaged in such work behaviors in exchange for the rewards it brings. The effect gets stronger and stronger over time, and is highly likely to be learned via observation and modelling by the offspring.

The fact is that we are creating welfare dependencies, and once a person is on it, they become more and more likely to stay on it and return to it in the future, independent of the effects of actual need (which are obviously an even bigger causal factor).
HOWEVER, that fact does not justify not having welfare. It justifies trying to make it as conditional as possible, without placing burdens that impede those sincerely trying to improve their situation. And even if some dependency results, we still need it because ethically we should not treat people like other animals. If some squirrels die of starvation because we don't feed them, but in the long run more are self-sufficient, then that is acceptable. People starving to death in our streets because we don't want to increase dependence is an unacceptable tradeoff.

In sum, the rational pro-welfare position is to accept the reality of caused dependency, and just say, "Too fucking bad, we are feeding them anyway, because they are humans and we are humane. We should strive to create contingencies that reward work-related actions were possible, but we won't allow people to fall below a certain level of assistance, no matter how unproductive they are."

 

[Sarpedon]

Why yes, of course humans are animals. If this were an honest analysis of the psychological and economic effects of the welfare system, I would not be so vehemently against it.

But of course, that is not the case. The treating of african americans as animals has a long history in the United States, and it has nothing to do with an accurate scientific analysis. I also never said that republicans were against welfare ONLY for blacks. They use racism to fool poor white racists into voting against it.

 

[fromderinside]

Why yes, of course humans are animals. If this were an honest analysis of the psychological and economic effects of the welfare system, I would not be so vehemently against it.

But of course, that is not the case. The treating of african americans as animals has a long history in the United States, and it has nothing to do with an accurate scientific analysis. I also never said that republicans were against welfare ONLY for blacks. They use racism to fool poor white racists into voting against it.

Ever see an animal, Descartes sense, constitution? Language and control of things distinguish us from them. Oh shit. So do our laws.

 

[ronburgundy]

Why yes, of course humans are animals. If this were an honest analysis of the psychological and economic effects of the welfare system, I would not be so vehemently against it.

But of course, that is not the case. The treating of african americans as animals has a long history in the United States, and it has nothing to do with an accurate scientific analysis. I also never said that republicans were against welfare ONLY for blacks. They use racism to fool poor white racists into voting against it.

But your conclusion that this post was motivated by racism only makes sense under the assumption that the GOP is only opposed to welfare as a form of racism. If you agree that this assumption is false, then you must allow for the plausibility that this post was merely making the "dependency" argument and pointing out that liberal are hypocritical when they deny the dependency effects of welfare systems.
The fact that the author might also be a racist doesn't mean that everything he says to which a racist motive might apply actually is rooted in racism. Racists often say things that are not racist, and a statement isn't racist just because a racist said it.
This is the same thinking that motivates liberals do take anti-science positions, such as denying biological contributions to individual differences in general cognitive abilities. They deny it despite massive scientific support, because it sounds like something a racist might be motivated to say or that racists have agreed with.

The fact that a GOP website said it, does increase the probability that was a coded racist remark. However, that probability is still far from 100%, and it quite plausibly could have been a-racial and just trying to score points by pointing to internal inconsistencies among many liberals.

 

[EricK]

How about we start acknowledging that the majority of the recipients of food stamps are white?

And children.

Indeed. Which makes the accusations of racism seem particularly groundless.

It occurs to me that many who see racism in the quote in the OP are instinctively racist themselves, although with enough awareness to realise that these feelings are wrong. Otherwise there seems little reason to form the analogy between animals and certain races on welfare, rather than taking the surface meaning of simply an analogy between animals and everyone on welfare.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How about we start acknowledging that the majority of the recipients of food stamps are white?

And children.

Indeed. Which makes the accusations of racism seem particularly groundless.

Only in the context that Republicans recognize that the majority of those receiving SNAP aid are children, disabled, elderly.

However, in the Republican bubble, the vast majority of blacks are on welfare, don't work, and live the high life.

It occurs to me that many who see racism in the quote in the OP are instinctively racist themselves, although with enough awareness to realise that these feelings are wrong.

Only if you don't actually live in the US and hear this shit all the fucking time.

 

[Sarpedon]

But your conclusion that this post was motivated by racism only makes sense under the assumption that the GOP is only opposed to welfare as a form of racism. If you agree that this assumption is false, then you must allow for the plausibility that this post was merely making the "dependency" argument and pointing out that liberal are hypocritical when they deny the dependency effects of welfare systems

NO I'M NOT! This completely misses the point of my post. I am under the impression that the GOP is not a monolithic entity, but composed of a variety of voting blocks, (at least) one of which is racists, and that the party leadership uses speech like this when addressing them. Racism is one of their tools to motivate certain voters. Other voters have different motivations.

And frankly, I think this country has had enough of letting racists off the hook because they've gotten so good at coding their speech that one can't '100 percent' prove they are racists. This isn't a court of law, this is a cultural transformation, and the only victims are ideas.

It occurs to me that many who see racism in the quote in the OP are instinctively racist themselves, although with enough awareness to realise that these feelings are wrong.

Absolutely! The US has a racist culture, and we are all in it. I acknowledge without reservation that I learned racism growing up, have said and done racist things, and now greatly repent it, while still having the habit in my brain. This was despite the best efforts of my parents to spare me these things. It is everywhere in our culture, and one cannot escape it. This is why we need to root out this sort of crap, so that someday we might raise a generation of Americans who will think racism is as weird and incomprehensible as animal sacrifice.

While this thought is correct, your conclusion does not follow. You seem to think the racism of those who are aware and honest enough to admit it somehow excuses that of those who are not.