8 ms·

I think a lot of the resentment felt by the rural American poor has to do with their perception that they are constantly ignored or overlooked, while similarly

I think a lot of the resentment felt by the rural American poor has to do with their perception that they are constantly ignored or overlooked, while similarly impoverished inner-city minorities are at least given some kind of institutional sympathy. It's hard to say how true this really is, or how much of it is simply further fuel for pre-existing racism, but apparently this perception is ubiquitous enough that it can be leveraged to win national elections. I will say the events of the last year have definitely opened my eyes to the situation. The thing I've noticed is that it actually is harder to sympathize with the white, rural poor than it is with the inner-city minorities, at least for me - even though I want to sympathize and I acknowledge their suffering is probably more or less equal to the inner-city minority poor. I suppose the reason I find it more difficult to feel equivalent sympathy is that it's hard to get over the fact that the white rural poor seem to constantly cling to counter-productive political/world-views that perpetuate their poverty and act against their interests. I mean it's just really hard to allocate significant sympathy towards a large voting-bloc that seems to blame all their problems on terrorism and immigration. But then again, perhaps I am generalizing - I mean I'm just a clueless liberal living in my NYC bubble so what do I know anyway?

gmarx 10y ago
charles-salvia- the following is not directed against you because you seem to have some insight into your own prejudices. Just about everyone is bigoted against some group or other. The fascinating thing is that this now has a meta-component, that is, the perceived bigotry of an out group is one of the rationales for the moral acceptability of bigotry against them. Of course to most people who have such bigotry they would never call it such. I do hope down voting this comment helps others deal with the cognitive dissonance.
rtx 10y ago
Would you sympathise with someone who blames his problems on slavery?
- exolymph 10y ago
  The distinction is that slavery is actually bad — a human rights atrocity with centuries of fallout — whereas globalization is (according to the liberal worldview) good. I mostly share the liberal worldview.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    That's an interesting distinction. On its face it suggests that some human rights atrocities are more morally acceptable than others, but I can't imagine how such a reading might be accurate to fact.
    - exolymph 10y ago
      What part of my comment suggests "that some human rights atrocities are more morally acceptable than others"?
  - 234dd57d2c8dba 10y ago
    Globalism is just another form of slavery, to corporations and global government. There might not be iron chains, but it's still all about control and power. Unaccountable bureaucrats pulling strings on everything from what your money is worth to restricting information from you about where your food is grown.
- charles-salvia 10y ago
  I would say it's counter-productive - but at least a direct causal line can be drawn between slavery and the current lower average socio-economic status of black people in the US. Whereas, there is absolutely no causal line between the current plight of poor white people and Mexican immigrants/Islamic terrorism.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - intopieces 10y ago
dbcurtis 10y ago
Actually you are making some very broad generalizations based on little data.
noobiemcfoob 10y ago
Much of the same can be said of impoverished inner city citizens. It's human nature to find external causes to your pains outside of your control. There's a double annoyance with inner city residents, though, in that many just expect the government to solve the problems, leaving them without motivation. Almost robbing them of it in some cases. Anyone working hard towards their dreams, no matter how large or small, will naturally resent such mentalities.
- infosample 10y ago
  It's hard to tell if you are making a counterargument to the parent or if you believe inner city residents[0] expect government to solve their problems, lack motivation, and don't work hard. [0] Do the people you are referring to actually live in the inner city?
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Have you ever lived in the "inner city"?
    - gamblor956 10y ago
      Yes. I've also lived in rural America. While there are significant populations of lazy dolists in both, the population of do-nothings is much higher in rural America. Rural America really does believe that everyone has forgotten about them, and blame all their problems on other people while they happily do meth or get drunk all day in their trailers. The thing is...they're right. Because they live so far from any place that matters, no one who matters thinks about their situation, so it's much more difficult to leave rural America than it is to leave the inner city.
      - charles-salvia 10y ago
        Well, Donald Trump matters. And he thought about them. And this is where we are.
throwanem 10y ago
Do you need to feel involved at an emotional level with the problems of your fellow citizens - problems which limit their ability to participate positively in our society to the gain of all - in order to consider it worthwhile that our government take those problems seriously? If so, why so? I ask because this seems a very strange fashion in which to approach such a matter. On the one hand, you seem by your comment here very concerned with the possibility that one effect of these issues going unchecked is the election of a president with whom I presume you gravely disagree on almost every issue. On the other hand, your analysis of the issues themselves, and the value of efforts directed at mitigating or resolving them, seems entirely colored by the degree of emotional involvement you feel with the people who are most directly affected. I don't understand this perspective at all, and I'm hoping you will take the time to explain what about it you find as sensible as your comment here strongly suggests you do.
Decade 10y ago
Some of the resentment is because cities are no longer aspirational. In the old days, if you are unhappy with your life, then you move to the city and make a new life. These days, you can’t even imagine moving to the city, because one month of rent will wipe out years of savings. http://idiosyncraticwhisk.blogspot.com/2015/11/housing-series-part-77-housing-is.html http://idiosyncraticwhisk.blogspot.com/2015/11/housing-serie... https://medium.com/@laurafooteclark/how-do-we-avoid-another-trump-1d4fcf04b9fe https://medium.com/@laurafooteclark/how-do-we-avoid-another-...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
neltnerb 10y ago
I don't think there's anything broken just because you feel both sympathy and resentment for the same people. The real world is complicated, and it's good that you're able to admit that you have this internal conflict. I will point out that there is one big blind spot I'm seeing in stuff like this. I suspect that you're conflating middle class white voters in conservative cities with poor rural white people and lumping them all together as "white rural voters". You shouldn't assume that they're a bloc, even in California lots of people are conservative and vice versa. Every state has lots of open minded people who just want to find joy in their lives like everyone else. I grew up in Indiana, and if we want to go full anecdote, one example is my Boy Scout leader saying he'd stand by me against the national organization's anti-gay policies if push came to shove. Or NOBCChE letting me in because there was no other way to do the science fair at my high school. They didn't even tell me what NOBCChE stood for, and somehow I literally never noticed that I was the only person there who wasn't black. There are good people everywhere. Everywhere. I have very little resentment for poor white people. I am very resentful of well off people voting for their own power, comfort, religious authority, and low taxes over the well being and safety of millions of people. The data is enlightening, and I'll refrain from editorializing it: http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls So yeah, I'm very sympathetic to anyone who is having a hard time. Especially those who see no way out. But that doesn't mean I'm okay with things that hurt me and my friends -- especially when that pain inflicted does nothing to actually alleviate anyone else's problems. Kicking out immigrants or forcing gays into the closet or preventing transgender people from using the bathroom or preventing minorities from voting or making Jews fear for their lives won't help the opioid crisis or provide financial security. Treating these things like they are in any way intrinsically related is a huge problem in framing that results in poor tactics.
InitialLastName 10y ago
In one sense, this is a little true: It's easier and more efficient to provide access to the various safety net services in a city. Just like you can support a niche store in a big city that would never see enough customers to survive in a small town. Population density improves the "customer":"provider resource" ratio. Access to lots of other services is better too... In the core of the large city I live in, there are so many emergency rooms/clinics that it would be difficult to be outside of walking distance of emergency care. That's much harder to do (and a poor allocation of resources) in rural Oklahoma, but it means my access to medical care is dramatically better.

gmarx 10y ago

charles-salvia- the following is not directed against you because you seem to have some insight into your own prejudices. Just about everyone is bigoted against some group or other. The fascinating thing is that this now has a meta-component, that is, the perceived bigotry of an out group is one of the rationales for the moral acceptability of bigotry against them. Of course to most people who have such bigotry they would never call it such. I do hope down voting this comment helps others deal with the cognitive dissonance.

rtx 10y ago

Would you sympathise with someone who blames his problems on slavery?

exolymph 10y ago
The distinction is that slavery is actually bad — a human rights atrocity with centuries of fallout — whereas globalization is (according to the liberal worldview) good. I mostly share the liberal worldview.
- throwanem 10y ago
  That's an interesting distinction. On its face it suggests that some human rights atrocities are more morally acceptable than others, but I can't imagine how such a reading might be accurate to fact.
  - exolymph 10y ago
    What part of my comment suggests "that some human rights atrocities are more morally acceptable than others"?
- 234dd57d2c8dba 10y ago
  Globalism is just another form of slavery, to corporations and global government. There might not be iron chains, but it's still all about control and power. Unaccountable bureaucrats pulling strings on everything from what your money is worth to restricting information from you about where your food is grown.
charles-salvia 10y ago
I would say it's counter-productive - but at least a direct causal line can be drawn between slavery and the current lower average socio-economic status of black people in the US. Whereas, there is absolutely no causal line between the current plight of poor white people and Mexican immigrants/Islamic terrorism.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- intopieces 10y ago

dbcurtis 10y ago

Actually you are making some very broad generalizations based on little data.

noobiemcfoob 10y ago

Much of the same can be said of impoverished inner city citizens. It's human nature to find external causes to your pains outside of your control. There's a double annoyance with inner city residents, though, in that many just expect the government to solve the problems, leaving them without motivation. Almost robbing them of it in some cases. Anyone working hard towards their dreams, no matter how large or small, will naturally resent such mentalities.

infosample 10y ago
It's hard to tell if you are making a counterargument to the parent or if you believe inner city residents[0] expect government to solve their problems, lack motivation, and don't work hard. [0] Do the people you are referring to actually live in the inner city?
- rayiner 10y ago
  Have you ever lived in the "inner city"?
  - gamblor956 10y ago
    Yes. I've also lived in rural America. While there are significant populations of lazy dolists in both, the population of do-nothings is much higher in rural America. Rural America really does believe that everyone has forgotten about them, and blame all their problems on other people while they happily do meth or get drunk all day in their trailers. The thing is...they're right. Because they live so far from any place that matters, no one who matters thinks about their situation, so it's much more difficult to leave rural America than it is to leave the inner city.
    - charles-salvia 10y ago
      Well, Donald Trump matters. And he thought about them. And this is where we are.

throwanem 10y ago

Do you need to feel involved at an emotional level with the problems of your fellow citizens - problems which limit their ability to participate positively in our society to the gain of all - in order to consider it worthwhile that our government take those problems seriously? If so, why so? I ask because this seems a very strange fashion in which to approach such a matter. On the one hand, you seem by your comment here very concerned with the possibility that one effect of these issues going unchecked is the election of a president with whom I presume you gravely disagree on almost every issue. On the other hand, your analysis of the issues themselves, and the value of efforts directed at mitigating or resolving them, seems entirely colored by the degree of emotional involvement you feel with the people who are most directly affected. I don't understand this perspective at all, and I'm hoping you will take the time to explain what about it you find as sensible as your comment here strongly suggests you do.

Decade 10y ago

Some of the resentment is because cities are no longer aspirational. In the old days, if you are unhappy with your life, then you move to the city and make a new life. These days, you can’t even imagine moving to the city, because one month of rent will wipe out years of savings. http://idiosyncraticwhisk.blogspot.com/2015/11/housing-series-part-77-housing-is.html http://idiosyncraticwhisk.blogspot.com/2015/11/housing-serie... https://medium.com/@laurafooteclark/how-do-we-avoid-another-trump-1d4fcf04b9fe https://medium.com/@laurafooteclark/how-do-we-avoid-another-...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

neltnerb 10y ago

I don't think there's anything broken just because you feel both sympathy and resentment for the same people. The real world is complicated, and it's good that you're able to admit that you have this internal conflict. I will point out that there is one big blind spot I'm seeing in stuff like this. I suspect that you're conflating middle class white voters in conservative cities with poor rural white people and lumping them all together as "white rural voters". You shouldn't assume that they're a bloc, even in California lots of people are conservative and vice versa. Every state has lots of open minded people who just want to find joy in their lives like everyone else. I grew up in Indiana, and if we want to go full anecdote, one example is my Boy Scout leader saying he'd stand by me against the national organization's anti-gay policies if push came to shove. Or NOBCChE letting me in because there was no other way to do the science fair at my high school. They didn't even tell me what NOBCChE stood for, and somehow I literally never noticed that I was the only person there who wasn't black. There are good people everywhere. Everywhere. I have very little resentment for poor white people. I am very resentful of well off people voting for their own power, comfort, religious authority, and low taxes over the well being and safety of millions of people. The data is enlightening, and I'll refrain from editorializing it: http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls So yeah, I'm very sympathetic to anyone who is having a hard time. Especially those who see no way out. But that doesn't mean I'm okay with things that hurt me and my friends -- especially when that pain inflicted does nothing to actually alleviate anyone else's problems. Kicking out immigrants or forcing gays into the closet or preventing transgender people from using the bathroom or preventing minorities from voting or making Jews fear for their lives won't help the opioid crisis or provide financial security. Treating these things like they are in any way intrinsically related is a huge problem in framing that results in poor tactics.

InitialLastName 10y ago

In one sense, this is a little true: It's easier and more efficient to provide access to the various safety net services in a city. Just like you can support a niche store in a big city that would never see enough customers to survive in a small town. Population density improves the "customer":"provider resource" ratio. Access to lots of other services is better too... In the core of the large city I live in, there are so many emergency rooms/clinics that it would be difficult to be outside of walking distance of emergency care. That's much harder to do (and a poor allocation of resources) in rural Oklahoma, but it means my access to medical care is dramatically better.