4 ms·

The current racism in Oregon is certainly not something I want to understate but it's unfair to compare Oregon now to the deep South now. The whole of the Unite

The current racism in Oregon is certainly not something I want to understate but it's unfair to compare Oregon now to the deep South now. The whole of the United States was founded on slavery but a lot has changed. Not nearly as much as has changed in the South. For example, President Obama lost the national white vote 43% to 55% in 2008 (1). In 2008, more than 89% of the voters in Oregon were white and voted for Obama by 59% to 41% (2). I think it's fair to say at least recently, the white people in Oregon think very differently than the white people in the South. Of course, issues around race continue to exist in significant and meaningful ways in Oregon. But saying it's all the same is deceitfully misleading. (1) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008 (2) https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2008/results/states/exitpolls/oregon.html https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2008/results/states/exitpo...

smaryjerry 5y ago
This assumes all votes were based on race and that voting for a white person makes you racist and voting for a black person makes you not racist. There is just so much wrong with that.
- dumbfoundded 5y ago
  Your response is disgustingly incorrect. President Obama's election as the first black president certainly included significant racial elements. When comparing it to Clinton vs Dole in 1996, Clinton lost the white vote 42% to 44% (1). Obama lost the white vote 43% to 55% (2). Both Clinton and Obama won by 8% differences. Yes, not voting for the black candidate over the white candidate doesn't make you racist. But to ignore race altogether as a factor is just as ignorant and even more damaging. The 2008 president election was one of the most racially divisive elections in US history (3). (1) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1996 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1996 (2) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008 (3) http://www.columbia.edu/~tko2103/GVF20110722.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~tko2103/GVF20110722.pdf
  - generalizations 5y ago
    You left out something important. In 1996, Clinton won the African-American vote 84% to 12%. In 2008, Obama won the African-American vote 95% to 4%. That's a far larger difference. You're right: let's not ignore race. By your own logic, if you're saying the white polling numbers show white racism, then you have to admit that the African American polling numbers show far more extreme racism on the part of African Americans.
    - dumbfoundded 5y ago
      I know you already know how silly this comparison is. Replace White with Han Chinese and Black with Uyghur if you need help. It's not exactly a surprise when the repressed and discriminated against minority sees race as a more important issue. Equating racism without considering the context of who holds what power is simply disingenuous.
      - generalizations 5y ago
        I used exactly the same argument you did, with equivalent data. You're now trying to wiggle out of admitting equivalent conclusions. That stinks of gross and explicit doublethink.
        dumbfoundded 5y ago
        You're so goofy. I love it. We should hang out sometime. Edit: I apologize for doing this as an edit but HN won't let me reply so here it is. I've made my points and you've made your's. You haven't brought up any new points and you've been ignoring mine previous ones that already anticipate your response. So let's trivialize it because it's not going any further. Seriously though. I hope you have a wonderful day.
        generalizations 5y ago
        Aw, you can't come up with a rational response. I'll admit, trivializing is a decent follow-up when you've got no arguments left. EDIT: I'll answer with an edit also. For my part, it seems like my response went unanswered and you didn't really anticipate it, and I do think the argument has places to go. However, I do wish you the best, and I hope you have a wonderful day too.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  It doesn't assume anything. It registers evidence for one hypothesis over another. If the evidence doesn't move your priors at all, then you're not thinking rationally. Of course there are other factors as well (which perhaps dominate), the strictness of the Dem/Rep split, etc. but this one piece of evidence should move you in the direction described.
  - smaryjerry 5y ago
    That isn’t evidence for anyone voting based on race or that Oregon having more whites voting for a black person makes them less racist. Just being a different color has absolutely nothing to do with any of their qualifications, policies, personality, opponent, and more. Assuming race is the biggest factor based on the voters race and the candidates race is extremely racist in itself. An outcome alone based on race doesn’t determine the motive of voters. Even just candidates campaigning in a specific area would result in very different numbers.
generalizations 5y ago
> The whole of the United States was founded on slavery Citation needed. I'll be curious how you show that each state was "founded on" slavery, and how that was true from the inception of each of those states.
- dumbfoundded 5y ago
  Slavery was the chief issue preventing the colonies from creating a united government. At first, the Articles of Confederation created a shell of a government that quickly fell apart leading to the constitutional convention and the creation of the US Government as we know it today. At the time, slavery was the most contested issue when writing the current constitution. It's important to recognize almost all of the economic power of the US came from slave labor exports like tobacco. That's why we have so many Virginians as founding fathers and why the capital was put in Virginia. The compromise that led to the Southern Colonies accepting the US constitution is famously known as the 3/5 compromise. This compromise heavily impacted US politics for decades as new states had to be evenly added to maintain the balance between slave holding states and non-slave holding states. When this balance fell apart, the civil war started. The issue of slavery weighed heavily in the creation of the US from political, economic, and cultural perspectives for decades. Slavery formed the economic basis of the early United States and 250 years later, we're still feeling its impact.
  - generalizations 5y ago
    You said, "the whole of the United States was founded on slavery." That statement is what I take issue with. If you feel like amending that, to something like "some parts of the United States leaned heavily on the use of slavery", I would agree. It's the extreme claim of your first statement that I take issue with. In general, you've limited your claims to some of the original 13 states / colonies. That's a far cry from "the whole of the United States". I'd like to see your sources for each of the other 50 states, that they were each founded on slavery. Not only that, but you seem to be defending your very general statement by only looking at a very limited time frame. Were each of the states so heavily dependent on slavery that it could be said that, e.g., Wyoming or Wisconsin or even Alaska were founded on slavery? I don't think so.

smaryjerry 5y ago

This assumes all votes were based on race and that voting for a white person makes you racist and voting for a black person makes you not racist. There is just so much wrong with that.

dumbfoundded 5y ago
Your response is disgustingly incorrect. President Obama's election as the first black president certainly included significant racial elements. When comparing it to Clinton vs Dole in 1996, Clinton lost the white vote 42% to 44% (1). Obama lost the white vote 43% to 55% (2). Both Clinton and Obama won by 8% differences. Yes, not voting for the black candidate over the white candidate doesn't make you racist. But to ignore race altogether as a factor is just as ignorant and even more damaging. The 2008 president election was one of the most racially divisive elections in US history (3). (1) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1996 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1996 (2) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008 (3) http://www.columbia.edu/~tko2103/GVF20110722.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~tko2103/GVF20110722.pdf
- generalizations 5y ago
  You left out something important. In 1996, Clinton won the African-American vote 84% to 12%. In 2008, Obama won the African-American vote 95% to 4%. That's a far larger difference. You're right: let's not ignore race. By your own logic, if you're saying the white polling numbers show white racism, then you have to admit that the African American polling numbers show far more extreme racism on the part of African Americans.
  - dumbfoundded 5y ago
    I know you already know how silly this comparison is. Replace White with Han Chinese and Black with Uyghur if you need help. It's not exactly a surprise when the repressed and discriminated against minority sees race as a more important issue. Equating racism without considering the context of who holds what power is simply disingenuous.
    - generalizations 5y ago
      I used exactly the same argument you did, with equivalent data. You're now trying to wiggle out of admitting equivalent conclusions. That stinks of gross and explicit doublethink.
      - dumbfoundded 5y ago
        You're so goofy. I love it. We should hang out sometime. Edit: I apologize for doing this as an edit but HN won't let me reply so here it is. I've made my points and you've made your's. You haven't brought up any new points and you've been ignoring mine previous ones that already anticipate your response. So let's trivialize it because it's not going any further. Seriously though. I hope you have a wonderful day.
        generalizations 5y ago
        Aw, you can't come up with a rational response. I'll admit, trivializing is a decent follow-up when you've got no arguments left. EDIT: I'll answer with an edit also. For my part, it seems like my response went unanswered and you didn't really anticipate it, and I do think the argument has places to go. However, I do wish you the best, and I hope you have a wonderful day too.
renewiltord 5y ago
It doesn't assume anything. It registers evidence for one hypothesis over another. If the evidence doesn't move your priors at all, then you're not thinking rationally. Of course there are other factors as well (which perhaps dominate), the strictness of the Dem/Rep split, etc. but this one piece of evidence should move you in the direction described.
- smaryjerry 5y ago
  That isn’t evidence for anyone voting based on race or that Oregon having more whites voting for a black person makes them less racist. Just being a different color has absolutely nothing to do with any of their qualifications, policies, personality, opponent, and more. Assuming race is the biggest factor based on the voters race and the candidates race is extremely racist in itself. An outcome alone based on race doesn’t determine the motive of voters. Even just candidates campaigning in a specific area would result in very different numbers.

generalizations 5y ago

> The whole of the United States was founded on slavery Citation needed. I'll be curious how you show that each state was "founded on" slavery, and how that was true from the inception of each of those states.

dumbfoundded 5y ago
Slavery was the chief issue preventing the colonies from creating a united government. At first, the Articles of Confederation created a shell of a government that quickly fell apart leading to the constitutional convention and the creation of the US Government as we know it today. At the time, slavery was the most contested issue when writing the current constitution. It's important to recognize almost all of the economic power of the US came from slave labor exports like tobacco. That's why we have so many Virginians as founding fathers and why the capital was put in Virginia. The compromise that led to the Southern Colonies accepting the US constitution is famously known as the 3/5 compromise. This compromise heavily impacted US politics for decades as new states had to be evenly added to maintain the balance between slave holding states and non-slave holding states. When this balance fell apart, the civil war started. The issue of slavery weighed heavily in the creation of the US from political, economic, and cultural perspectives for decades. Slavery formed the economic basis of the early United States and 250 years later, we're still feeling its impact.
- generalizations 5y ago
  You said, "the whole of the United States was founded on slavery." That statement is what I take issue with. If you feel like amending that, to something like "some parts of the United States leaned heavily on the use of slavery", I would agree. It's the extreme claim of your first statement that I take issue with. In general, you've limited your claims to some of the original 13 states / colonies. That's a far cry from "the whole of the United States". I'd like to see your sources for each of the other 50 states, that they were each founded on slavery. Not only that, but you seem to be defending your very general statement by only looking at a very limited time frame. Were each of the states so heavily dependent on slavery that it could be said that, e.g., Wyoming or Wisconsin or even Alaska were founded on slavery? I don't think so.