The Home of Steven Barnes
Author, Teacher, Screenwriter


Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Out of Sight...

Frank seemed to say that his opinion about racist liberals comes from comments he's heard when black folks aren't around (or that he has special knowledge about this I can't have. I agree) So I ask white readers to respond:
When you've heard someone making negative/racist comments about black folks, when said black folks aren't around, and you are aware of the speaker's political attitudes, has it been your experience that those political attitudes are Liberal or Conservative?

37 comments:

Kami said...

In my personal experience, I can't pin racist comments on political bent. The person I've heard the most racist comments from, I have no idea whether she's D or R. At the risk of sounding money-ist, I've seen more correlation with means than politics. She lives hand to mouth. She seems to grab onto a person's most obvious trait and shoves them in that box faster than anyone I know, out of frustration and despair. I can even understand it. For example, her sister, after their mother's death, has been struggling with getting loans and grants to go to school. With a lot of hard work, she managed to get on a payment plan for a laptop. She'd had it all of two weeks when it was stolen out of their hotel room. Before they left the room, they had to have a plugged toilet plunged by someone the hotel had on-call. The serviceman made a comment about how nice her computer was. The computer was the only thing stolen out of the room. The thing she grabbed onto was that he was Russian (with before and after language) and that he was in America but she could barely understand him. She then launched into a tirade about what is this country coming to when it's obvious who the thief is but no one, not the hotel (which is not liable for room theft) or the police or anyone is willing or able to do something about it.

I see much less rage and much less inclination to blame a group rather than an individual when there's a certain level of economic comfort. I think maybe that's because if you're struggling, the illusion of a quick fix (keep out all those illegal immigrants, make profiling okay, etc.) is powerfully appealing, whereas someone who is comfortable is able to weigh options. I wonder if objectivity is a luxury.

Brian Dunbar said...

Good question.

The only person like that who comes to mind is my ex-wife and her brothers.

They fly the stars and bars, refer to black people in the way you'd expect white trash to (unless they're 'good' black people, natch). Why, one of my wife's friends in high school was black.

I'm not sure of their political bent; last time I talked to any of them was more than a decade ago, and they were pretty apolitical. I vaguely recall that they were vaguely gung-ho about Clinton in 92 but I don't know if that is bias or bad memory.

Kami might have something - my ex-wife's parents were lower-middle class and with most of her sibs sunk well below that after high school, between drink, drugs and gambling.

Steven Barnes said...

I like both of your observations correlating racism with class rather than political bent. More comments?

Dan Moran said...

Education, let's even say sophistication, moreso than class. The isms in general are usually caused by ignorance, when they're not caused by hatred. The latter you can't do much with -- ignorance is cureable.

Admittedly, class and education are linked hard.

Steve Perry said...

Conservative, straight across.

Frank said...

Steve asked

You imply that, when black people are not present, you hear Liberals saying viler things (on average) than Conservatives.

Say. Heavens forbid no! It's almost everything else.

Here's a good example. As you may know my wife works at Job Corps and I live in Vermont.

Now you must remember that Vermont is one of the Whitest States in the Union. It is also one of the most Liberal. Even our Republicans can hardly be called Republican let alone Conservative.

Anyway, within Job Corps is probably the largest concentration of minority young adults in the State. The town of Vergennes restricts their movement when they are off center.

The kids notice this.

They get a weekly stipend for attending the program. When they go into the various establishments to purchase goods, they are watched closely by the employees.

The kids notice this.

Last year, they (female) Mayor of Vergennes came to visit as they do every year. The culinary arts students prepare a beautiful meal for the Town Leaders. The Mayor made a speech talking about all the ways Job Corps contributes to the community and she went to shake the hands of the kids. She shook the hand of not a single black kid.

The kids notice this.

You don't hear people talk bad about the black or hispanic kids. You hear them talk with disdain about the Job Corps kids.

This despite all of the things they do for this community. The Urban Forestry students trim all the trees in the city green and the graveyeards and along the streets for free. They plant flowers and trees in the spring. The city police cars are maintained for free by the Auto mechanic students. Each year they contribute a float to the Memorial Day Parade (The State's largest parade) and often win first place for their float. But that's because the floats are judged by the VFW not the city.

Granted, there's a good many of these kids who are from gangs and such and some of them have gotten themselves in trouble for stealing. But everytime that happens, it just allows the town folks to paint all of the kids with that brush.

Except for the white kids. Because you can't tell the difference between a white kid and a town kid...

My wife works there everyday. And she'll be the first to tell you that some of these kids are rotten. But she loves the vast majority of them and it breaks here heart to see the way they are treated in a town they contribute so much to.

If you are black or hispanic and you're walking around town, you're a Job Corps kid.

Even if your not.

And everybody knows what you mean when you say Job Corps kid.

Anonymous said...

when my sons were still at home
in a Northeastern bedroom community
composed mainly of doctor/lawyer houeholds
when I'd go to pick up elder son from wrestling practice
and no one knew I was his mother
me being white and he being perceptibly black
I heard all kinds of racist comments
same for attending TaeKwonDo tournaments
also heard racist commentary from school principals
said to my face

the kids I heard mouth off in bigoted ways
where the children of
LLD's and PhD's and MD's
rthe community at the time strictly republican
who would say to me
at public/social occasions
"there is no prejudice here in XXX"

a couple of decades down the line
a healthy population of Democrats in the town council, on the school board and in other public offices

having no kids in school here now
I don;t know if things have improved or not

suzanne

Mike said...

In my experience, it's been generally Conservatives - or, more specifically, my father-in-law. But then, he falls into the group that Steve argues must die (of old age) before we see major change.

tenaciousnancy said...

In my experience racist comments come from middle class Baby Boomers. Their educations range from high school to post-graduate.

Steve, I truly hope that after that generation passes away things will get better. Even a little.

Steven Barnes said...

Tenacious--
EVERY indication I see is that things are getting better, honestly. I think there are two basic reasons for this
1) Human beings are basically decent. When they are not hungry or afraid, they automatically begin to rise to higher levels of operation. The "Tribal" level is 3rd Chakra stuff. Heart is 4th Chakra. Open the heart, and we see the same loving energy everywhere.
2) The myth of America is just about the best myth going on the planet. Our founding fathers "threw their hat over the fence" in terms of standards of human interaction. God knows we've had a hard time trying to live up to it, but the point is that WE TRY. I think that is exceptional, and extraordinary--but also reflective of our true natures as spiritual beings. Love this country. Love this planet.
What a great place to spend 100 years or so!

Lynn Gazis-Sax said...

Mostly conservative, mostly older. The one exception I can think of is that sometimes people who are mentally ill will get more vocally prejudiced (against various groups) while in episode regardless of their usual politics. And then feel that prejudice wasn't who they really are, once they get out of episode (sort of an exaggerated version of the way other people's prejudices come out more under stress, I guess).

Garry said...

Sadly, yes; the most unthinking, presumptuous, stereotype-embracing racism, prejudice and bigotry that I have encountered has been from 'liberals'.

I would also note that 'liberal' racism is nothing new or surprising-all the politicians and government bureaucrats that supported segregation in the 1950's and '60's were, almost without exception, Democrats-who have self-defined for quite a while as 'liberals'; and that-from Lincoln onwards-the anti-segregation and anti-racist forces were conservatives and classical liberals.

It is what drove me on a political/philosophical journey that ended up in small-l libertarianism-which is, fundamentally, classical liberalism.

I put that 'liberal' parentheses because what is referred to as liberal political thought in the United States today is not related to classical liberalism; instead, it's an assumed identity that has been a cover for what should properly be defined as socialism-which begins to explain the preoccupation with stereotypes and bigotry that it embraces. The usage of 'libertarian' was coined in the early '70's to denote , in the US, what is called in the rest of the world a liberal. Ironic, no?

Socialism always uses the technique of division to accomplish and justify its aims; and that's where the 'politics of identity' that 'liberalism' has embraced comes in to play.

I could go on, but it should be noted that the first antislavery parties in England-the first effective ones in world history-were classical liberals and-perhaps primarily-religious Christians-not socialists. And that the socialist/communist states that have existed-states that are the extreme relatives of 'liberal' thought-have embraced, rather than an ideology of freedom, one of state slavery-one that assumes that a self-anointed 'elite' should command the complete obedience of all those lesser entities; and they define what 'lesser' means-and, quite often, that definition is racially, ethnically, or religiously based.

There's a LOT more to this argument; there has been some absorption into the Republican party of some of the 'state's rights' racists-using a sound doctrine falsely to justify their horrid creed. And the Democrats have adopted a public persona of anti-racism.

I leave this with one suggestion: has any program in the history of America caused more destruction to any one race than the welfare system of the 'Great Society' era? And is there any doubt that it was a creature of the Democratic party-and one whose eventual effects were commonly predicted by adherents to the Republican party, at it's inception?

Anonymous said...

I leave this with one suggestion: has any program in the history of America caused more destruction to any one race than the welfare system of the 'Great Society' era? And is there any doubt that it was a creature of the Democratic party-and one whose eventual effects were commonly predicted by adherents to the Republican party, at it's inception?

question or suggestion?

actually there are more white people
than black benefitting from the Great Society Programs
as I understand it

and while I am a firm believer in people helping themselves
i also see that people have to have certain knowledge
kinds of knowledge
to help themselves
and we as a society do
(as I think almost all societies I am aware of also fail to do)
a damn poor job
of educating ourselves
about how to be as independent
and at all levels
individual/familial/communal/
societal
as possible
at everything
especially thinking

dichomtomies
as in liberal./conservative
or repub/democrat
are generally useless
as they strip details
from the actual in their attempts
to make the complex simple

Frank said...

Steve says

EVERY indication I see is that things are getting better, honestly....The myth of America is just about the best myth going on the planet....God knows we've had a hard time trying to live up to it, but the point is that WE TRY.

Absolutely. Well said. And we beat ourselves up publicly when we don't measure up. How many other countries do this?

Even in war we try to be humane. One of the reasons we have such a big defense budget is because we pioneered and continue to improve our ability to hit targets precisely, reducing collateral damage.

Also, I remember a Colin Powell anecdote:

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

Shawn said...

I would say about equal between liberal and conservative, but that may be due to associating with mostly liberals, and my way of defining those two groups (see below.)

When I've heard these kind of comments, I have automatically assigned the person making them to category Racist. Liberal or Conservative ceases to apply. Then again, I tend to define Conservative as "against changing the current social and political system."

The Liberals who get reassigned in this way tend to be the "victimized" type, it seems; they are liberal because they feel the system is against them, rather than because the system is unfair. Thus, they want change only in the ways that favor them and racist views are compatible with that.

The conservatives tend to be more open and honest about it, but I think both groups make these comments as a way of feeling me out to see if I sympathize with them. Depending on the situation, I will either change the subject or offer a counter-comment. Few of the racists will mention their views to me again, assuming we still interact with each other after that.

Frank (Scooter) said...

I'm 19, this is relevant because I have a very different perspective on racism in this country. It's not gonna get that much better as far as I can tell. It's gonna keep changing, for the better but moreso it will get disguised to the point where there will be white people victimized by racism because the only way that racism can be continued is to victimize areas that are predominantly black.

There is a school district outside of Grand Rapids that stopped allowing transfer students from other districts with overwhelming support from the students. Funny thing is, most of these students were black and from GRPS, our basically miserably failed school system. Now these students clearly had parents that cared enough to transfer them to another district and the means to get there. I know a lot of people from this district and they said some shit that sounded pretty racist but like "the job corp kids" they were "the transfer students" and to give any idea of the education level of most of these kid's parents the average income for the district per family is $100,000.

To along with that provide a fun example of institutionalized racism, GRPS gets 2/3 of the money per student that Forest Hills gets.
I think 30% of GRPS students are white and over 90% of Forest Hills is white.

I think racism will persist to be a problem in America long after any living generation dies.

Liberals are racists too, it just feels good to demonize "the other" and "racist" is one of liberals favorite cards to play against conservatives.

Brian Dunbar said...

Lynn Gazis-Sax said...

Mostly conservative, mostly older.


Ah .. don't most people get more conservative as they age?

If so you might expect to see this.

Dan Gambiera said...

I've seen and heard both. But it has definitely been more common and harsher when the speakers were Conservatives. Prejudice knows no boundaries, but some territories provide more fertile soil.

Nancy Lebovitz said...

I would say mostly conservative, though there's a flavor of libertarian who's very fond the idea of IQ-based differences between races. The most blatant bias I see on the liberal side is against southerners.

Stephanie said...

Across the board, conservatives. I know conservatives who use the word "democrat" to describe people of color with the same kind of distain they might use with uglier terms. These are people I like, mind you, but everytime it happens I cringe. I rarely say anything at this point, which is probably a failing on my part, but when I'm with conservative friends, I find I'm wasting my breath if I even bother to touch on a political or social issue.

The old reference to Democrats 50 years ago being racist, specifically in the South (and I'm a southerner) doesn't wash - the Democrats in the South back then were very conservative in their world view - by contrast, the anti-slavery Republicans were progressives. Using the party names to define liberal and conservative that way is nothing but bait and switch.

I think there's a great deal to the class issue, and beyond class, in the attitudes expressed around an individual - and people tend to imitate and adapt to the status quo, whatever they feel deep inside. - I have gay friends from small, conservative, religious communities who were virulent gay bashers until they moved out of the communities they grew up in, and were able to come out of the closet.

In my experience, the conservatives around me (and I've lived in almost every region of the country - back in the South now - and also overseas) tend to judge first by WHAT someone is, and then adjust by the individual as they get to know them, while the more liberal folks around me tend to just by WHO someone is first, without the knee jerk first response based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.

That doesn't mean conservatives are inherently bad people, but that they have more trouble making a connection with that which is other than they are than most liberals.

Marty S said...

I think the ageism on this blog is an overdone stereotype. I am an older white male age 62. My friends, many of my associates, sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins fall into the older category if not the male category. The liberal democrats among them 30 years ago are almost all still liberal democrats and the conservative republicans 30 years ago are still conservative republicans. Those who will make racist comments were making them 30 years ago and those who don't were mostly not making them 30 years ago.

Kami said...

Ooo, I got a shiver there--where I live there are more democrats than conservatives, and around here if someone calls you a conservative you look around to see who noticed in case someone decides that they have to take you on. You want to talk ugly politics, especially if you get around an event such as a peace rally or our own beloved OryCon, if someone says they're a conservative I've seen some very negative reactions to that--red faces, shouting on the liberal side, defensiveness and retreating on the conservative side.

Gotta love the Bush Jr legacy, although I seem to remember it was pretty bad even before Bush. In fact, to be called a conservative assumed that (you want to talk about nasty stereotypes) you came from Eastern Oregon which equals you were stupid/uneducated and a redneck and white and racist and had a mean dog and and and ... and you waste your vote.

Thank goodness I'm not a conservative. At one point I could have expected to have my tires slashed, windows broken, the political office vandalized, and people calling me an idiot or racist or evil or whatever by people who don't know me.

Here's a thought--haven't thought this through, but it's an idea--there appears to be a greater (?) potential for serious conflict between groups that have different types of power. So, for example, we have conservatives in national political power but a democratic population (locally.) How about majority black population but whites in power? Familiar. Both sides feel overpowered from their point of view. If one side feels like it has no power (outnumbered, outgunnned, etc.) there's no fight. You can only lay low and hide.

Dan Moran said...

Garry,

"I would also note that 'liberal' racism is nothing new or surprising-all the politicians and government bureaucrats that supported segregation in the 1950's and '60's were, almost without exception, Democrats-who have self-defined for quite a while as 'liberals'; and that-from Lincoln onwards-the anti-segregation and anti-racist forces were conservatives and classical liberals."

This is historically illiterate.

1. A liberal President, Lyndon Johnson, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

2. A liberal President, John F. Kennedy, sent the bill to Congress in the first place.

3. The Democrats who voted against the Act were conservatives, not liberals. More particularly, Southern conservatives.

4. The Republicans who voted for the act were liberals, not conservatives. More particularly, Northern liberals.

5. In the House, Democrats voted for the Act 164-96. Republicans voted for it 138-34. So the Republicans come out looking better? Nope ... Northerners come out looking better. There were 104 representatives from the eleven Confederate States -- 94 Democrats and 10 Republicans. The Southern Democrats voted against the bill 87-7; Southern Republicans voted against it 10-0.

Non-Southern representatives? They passed that bill. Non-Southern Democrats voted for it 145-9; non-Southern Republicans voted for it 138-24.

Those 97 Southerners who voted against the Civil Rights legislation? They came from the Confederate States of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana,
Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, North Carolina and Tennessee ... every one of which voted for George Bush in 2004.

Mar said...

In my personal experience, all racist comments come from political conservatives. They just eat up Fox news and TRUTH radio. Rush is their hero. They usually tell me that they are born-again Christians (a phrase that I, as a Christian, have come to find offensive in itself). Their education ranges from high-school dropout to college educated (but none well-paid).

If there has been a prison stretch, the racism is overwhelming. I cowardly kept my mouth shut, recently, because I feared a physical attack from the expounder of such crap. I wouldn't mind seeing the guy go back to prison because I perceive him as working everybody, and the next con or anger outbreak is just in idle waiting. His comments a few months ago still anger me and his demeanor scares me. I don't heal very fast, and I never could fight. (Explanation or Excuse take your pick.)

I meet many conservative current and former military guys (and gals) and they don't say racist things. This seems a bright spot.

BTW, has anyone else noticed that the four most racist pundits are all Irish: Dobbs, O'Reilly, Hanity, Buchanan? Of course, I can find others, but I don't linger of FOX.

Martin said...

Reading the posts on this blog I'm beginning to wonder what constitutes a racist or racist comment. Clearly there are people who hate people of other races and want keep them down or knock them down and these people are racists. Clearly a comment like Blacks are dirt the don't belong on the same planet is racist. On the other hand is person who has Black friends, will stop to help a Black motorist in trouble, but still feels a little more uncomfortable when his/her car breaks down at 2:00 am in the morning in a Black neighborhood than they would in a White neighborhood also racist.

Jugglebird said...

While I've heard some self-identified liberals make racist comments, the vast majority are from conservatives. Also, more from men then women (80%/20%).

Brian Dunbar said...

Dan Moran
Those 97 Southerners who voted against the Civil Rights legislation? They came from the Confederate States

Dan, the Confederacy died in 1865. No one in the south uses the term. People in the South by that date accepted that God fights on the side with big battalions and made peace with it.

Granted there are exceptions but (racist Kluxer trash excepted) it falls under the heading of 'making fun of Yankees who move here and expect it to be like 'Deliverance''.


Martin
Reading the posts on this blog I'm beginning to wonder what constitutes a racist or racist comment.

So am I. I dug deep and gave the question some thought. I was deliberate and excluded comments from passers-by and what I've heard on the news: I have no idea what their politics are.

Example some of the foulest language I've ever heard was in a diner in Milwaukee. Solid blue collar union guys, my age, they were, on break from a plant across the street.

But they could have been - for all I know - the local GOP chair and his cronies.

Steven Barnes said...

A person can have "racist" (associating specifically hierarchical values to persons of certain ethnic groups, and attributing these to innate characteristics) view while still being a good and decent person. Opinions are our personal prerogatives: inhumane or cruel actions are a different matter.
#
A person who has black friends, would stop to help a black motorist, etc. but would be uncomfortable breaking down in a poor black neighborhood? I'd call that reasonably cautious, not racist. I'd feel uncomfortable, too. Also in a poor white or Asian or Latino neighborhood. Someone who crosses streets at night to avoid a group of tough-looking black youths? Reasonably cautious. I'd do the same thing seeing a group of tough-looking white kids coming my way. Or black, for that matter.
#
The way I define things, a bigot is someone who acts out on a racist generalization, who sees color before personality, and acts on these things. I grasp that that is my personal definition. This harkens back to the "is it racist if it's true?" question. Yes, it is. But it doesn't necessarily imply that the person with such an opinion is a "bad guy" or a bad neighbor, or anything other than someone with an opinion. Everyone has them, and I know damned few people, Conservative, Liberal, or whatever, who don't hold prejudices against something. Remember my belief that this stuff is hard-wired. Unfortunately (?) we've demonized "racism" so much that we can't admit the obvious: that most of us have such tendencies. It's not a bad thing, per se. It's just a thing. And one we have to learn to cope with as individuals, as a society, as a world.

Shawn said...

Martin - The racist comments I was thinking of were exclusionary or prejudiced comments from social events. These would probably never translate into overt racist actions, but would definitely show up as discrimination. It's things like, at a party about 2/3rds white, while talking to another white person in private after talking with both them and a black person a minute before - "X just really doesn't fit in here, you know?"

Dan Moran said...

Brian,

"Dan, the Confederacy died in 1865. No one in the south uses the term."

I know that. My wife's a Southerner and I've traveled a fair amount through the South. (Parts of which, for the record, I liked quite a bit.)

Has zip to do with the point that the 11 Confederate States, or ex-Confederate States if you prefer, were the core of the resistance against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and are the core of the Republican base today.

Kami said...

I'd have to check with Rory but I think the racism in jail comes in from all directions. The people within that population survive by creating us and other groups. That will include liberal and conservative, black and white and brown and whatever color you happen to be, bald, hairier than heck, nation of origin, religion, family, economic status, why you were sent to jail, what you can make people believe about why you were sent to jail, etc. So I'm not sure what light is shed by looking at the prison population except to show that human beings under stress become -ist.

Frank said...

Dan Moran said

Has zip to do with the point that the 11 Confederate States, or ex-Confederate States if you prefer, were the core of the resistance against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and are the core of the Republican base today.

OK, that;s your point, but what are you suggesting this means? Are you saying that for some reason these Democrats became Republicans? Why would the racists join the party that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Or are you saying that Southerners are racists no matter what party they belong to?

I would point out, that the most fervent opponent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Senator (and former KKK member) Robert Byrd, who, who personally filibustered the Bill for 14 hours (back at a time when you actually had to stand on the floor and speak the whole time). He's still a Democrat today.

And how does you point fit with the fact that the first Civil Rights Act (of 1957) was introduced by Republican President Eisenhower and again passed only as a result of Republicans. In this case, then Democrat Stromm Thurman set the record for filibusters when he tried took to the Senate floor for 24 hours and 18 minutes. The filibuster succeeded in that when Southerners were joined by North Western Democrats to use the filibuster to water down the bill.

So where do North Western Democrats fit into your analysis?

Stromm Thurman later became a Republican and repudiated his racist past. According to Wikipedia

In the 1970s, Thurmond endorsed racial integration earlier than many other southern politicians. He also hired African American staffers, enrolled his white daughter in an integrated public school, and supported black nominees for federal judgeships. Thurmond would also support extension of the Voting Rights Act and making the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. a federal holiday.

So he was a Democrat who opposed the first Civil RIghts Act, then became a Republican did a 180.

So how does this affect your argument?

Dan Moran said...

Frank,

It doesn't. The "Solid South" was once Democratic and is now Republican. But it was always conservative, as the Northeast was always liberal. Were there individual liberals who were wrong on race? Sure. And individual conservatives who were right. But the voting records by region were crystal clear.

When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights act, he said, "There goes the South for a generation." It's been two generations now, and no end in sight. Conservatives fled the Democratic Party after the Civil Rights act, because of the Civil Rights act.

Frank said...

Dan Moran

Conservatives fled the Democratic Party after the Civil Rights act, because of the Civil Rights act.

So your argument is that racist conservative Democrats left the party of racists and fled to the Party that passed the Civil Rights act because they were racist.

This made the Democrats less racist then they were and the Republicans more racist.

OK. Just so I'm clear.

Doesn't make sense to me, but OK.

Dan Moran said...

Frank,

"So your argument is that racist conservative Democrats left the party of racists and fled to the Party that passed the Civil Rights act because they were racist."

They blamed Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat. Yep, you've nailed it in one.

Either that, or the liberal South turned conservative over the space of forty years, while the conservative North turned liberal. Which do you think is likelier?

Steve Perry said...

Southern Democrats were always essentially Republicans. The reason they didn't join the GOP for so long was because it was Lincoln's party, and that of the carpetbaggers, including some of the Negro persuasion, sent south after the Civil War for Reconstruction.

When I was growing up, the Republicans in Louisiana could hold their convention in a phone booth.

Most southern Democrats I knew were Republicans in everything but name only, back when the GOP was still the GOP and acting it like it.

And don't kid yourself about the south shrugging off the War Between the States, aka "The Recent Unpleasantness." There are still people down there who get red-faced talking about William "Cump" Sherman, the son-of-a-bitch! who was a teacher at what would become LSU and who defected to the North to fight for the yankees.

Old wounds still fester.

Save yore Dixie cups, boys, the South'll rise again ...

TMSG said...

I'd say most are conservative.

Also, the most blatantly racist people I've met over the last few years seemed to fall into two groups.

1. No experience with the other group. A great deal of prejudice without real hatred here.

2. Daily experience with the other group on opposing sides of a conflict situation. The examples are a landlord and a police officer. They had some real vitriol.