Comments

1. Madame Zenobia wrote:

   You can attempt to marginalize it to your liking, but white poverty isn’t just some epidemic confined to a handfulla’ folks up in dem’ dar’ hills. Lets change that tired narrative for once and for all, please.

   Ha! Very good. I agree, let’s CHANGE this.

   On a related, but somewhat ‘not’ related note, I read a book called Salvation on Sand Mountain by Dennis Covington.

   http://www.amazon.com/Salvation-Sand-Mountain-Snake-Handling-Redemption/dp/0140254587

   I had to read this book for a creative fiction course I took. It deals with religion amongst certain Appalachian folk and highlights, rather, the poverty this special depicts. I’d recommend it, if you’re interested. The author came out “a changed man”.

   I’m interested to see everyone else’s responses to this topic. The “woe is me” cry goes differently for YT than for Black…this documentary (which I haven’t watched) is most definitely side-eye worthy.

   Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 9:24 am ¶

2. Leigh wrote:

   Great post and I especially appreciate the recognition of poor urban whites. I’m related to a whole lot of ‘em here in Boston (yes, some living in Southie) and it’s like WJ Wilson wrote The Truly Disadvantaged about my family.

   I haven’t seen this 20/20 special, I’m embarrassed to say, so I’m really glad to see the videos here.

   Thanks!

   Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 10:31 am ¶

3. Monie wrote:

   I think the White media understands that people accept to a large extent their place in life. If you show people (White people) that their place in life is success then they will strive for that to fulfill their destiny.

   On the other hand if you are able to make people (Black people) believe that they are dysfunctional and not likely to be successful then those people will accept their place.

   So it has always been in the best interest of White Supremacist mainstream media to hide poor Whites while displaying Poor Blacks as the face of poverty.

   Being poor has for many in this country become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

   Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 10:56 am ¶

4. Grace aka blackbelt wrote:

   Go Whoopi Go. I’m glad Diane did her program. But boy I agree 1000% it pi**es me off.

   I grew up where it was 98% white. Food stamps at the check out line? Out of wedlock? Drop outs? Ignorant? Racist? Yes yes yes yes yes.

   The few blacks I encountered in my world there? One was this incredible Civics teacher and her kids. The other was in the Gifted program with me.

   Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 10:58 am ¶

5. CVT wrote:

   I teach at an alternative school. An “urban” alternative school for students that aren’t being successful at our public schools (mostly kids who have been expelled or are about to be due to regular suspensions or awful attendance). Our student population is filled with kids missing parents, foster kids, homeless kids, abused kids, dealing with alcoholism, drug addiction, poverty and violence.

   And the majority of them are white.

   Yeah – they exist. I haven’t seen the show, but I can guess why folks don’t want to talk about all the poor white folks out there: because white folks (who run the media) don’t deal very well with being criticized (just picture white people’s reactions to being called out on racist acts), and so – by extension – they don’t want to criticize other white folks (because then it might just start trickling up the food chain).

   The funny thing is this: if the POOR white folks are just victims of circumstance and have no control over their lot – then wouldn’t that suggest that the RICH or MORE SUCCESSFUL white folks are just beneficiaries of FATE and good luck? If it’s not the poor white people’s fault (which, I’ll be honest, I don’t think it fully is, any more than I blame poor PoC for all their troubles), then those doing well deserve little credit – F the “bootstraps.”

   So when is THAT special going to come out?*

   *On a smaller level, it did: read Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers.”

   Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 11:06 am ¶

6. naomi c wrote:

   I grew up in a small town in the South, with about a 50/50 black-white split in demographics. it’s a really poor town (’specially compared to small towns i’ve seen in the north), but i never noticed much diff between the poor whites and poor blacks. i saw as many preg white teenage girls as black, and prob knew more white kids who dropped out of school.
   but now i work at a social services agency that works with poor new yorkers and prob only about 10% of our clients are white. i’m not sure if that means that there are fewer poor whites in the north? or they’re just not systemically held as accountable as the poor non-whites are…
   just some thoughts, and i havent seen the 20/20 special so i have no comments on that specifically

   Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 11:12 am ¶

7. gatamala wrote:

   Rory Kennedy did this a few years back and did a better job.

   Whoopi’s body language is priceless. And yes, SHE -not Lizzie- mentioned personal responsibility. Yet she shows restraint and doesn’t call bullshit on this whole enterprise

   Personal responsibility isn’t even discussed. The word “bootstraps” isn’t uttered a single time.

   They didn’t have to say it. It was implied by the scenes of them trudging 8 miles up hill and getting the kids up at 4:00 am.

   Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 11:20 am ¶

8. Thea wrote:

   Hadn’t heard about this special – thanks for letting us know!

   I really appreciate how you contrast the way poverty is portrayed by race. It’s fascinating how it works in multiple ways – 1) the poverty of white folks is hidden because it doesn’t fit the narrative of poor POCs as dragging the country down
   2) when the poverty of folks of colour does get play, it’s not done with any compassion or consideration of political/socio context 3) the poverty of white folks is not seen as a grave thing, and is often the butt of a joke.

   Like the hillbilly family on the Simpsons. Or college kids having “white trash” parties. I think one of the main cultural differences in the way POC poverty and white poverty is treated is that making fun of poor white people and joking about “trailer trash” is socially accepted in liberal circles. Meanwhile making fun of poor POCs (or making fun of POCs in general) is not considered socially acceptable generally – though of course it is done, often as way to be shocking.

   But this differential doesn’t benefit anyone. It doesn’t benefit white folks that their poverty is made light of. It doesn’t benefit POCs that it’s not “socially acceptable” to talk about race, almost at all – because we are crippled by a race problem that as a culture we can’t even broach.

   The way that racism and classism presents itself is so freaking complex, and I think as anti-racists or anti-poverty activists that’s one of our biggest barriers. It’s not just “fat cats” stealing money from plucky Jim or KKK members torching black houses. It’s way more nuanced, mind-bending and covert than that.

   Lots to think about. Thanks!

   Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 11:22 am ¶

9. CMyers wrote:

   The thing is that the picture we get of whites is that of urban, successful whites. But if whites had to give a voice to poor whites, they’d be looking at a mirror image of themselves and have to recognize their privilege and what they probably left behind. There’s an assumption that all white people work hard and pull themselves up by their boot straps. Those who do manage to do this often would rather not look back. Well if we start looking more into the poor white communities, we’d realize that it’s all a myth and most white people–like the rest of us–can’t pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Not all whites have silver spoons and legacies and political and business ties. They need help, they need people to care. But it’s easier to force them to remain invisible and continue to blame the nation’s problems on the “other”—-blacks, latinos, immigrants, etc.— and their “pathological” issues.

   It’s the same with other communities, except we can’t hide our dirty laundry the same way.

   Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 11:31 am ¶

10. Ugly Deaf Muslim Punk Gurl! wrote:

    Of course, let’s blame everything on minority folks. Blame world politics and the war on “terror” on Muslims. Blame immigration and lack of jobs on Mexicans. Blame outsourcing on Indians and Chinese folks. Blame the rise of STDs, AIDS, and teen pregnancies on poor colored teenaged females. aaaaannnndddd… blame the drug war on South Americans, too!

    You see, folks, this is how the world works. Blame EVERYONE except white people for society’s problems.

    Nobody should be shocked or surprised about this documentary being sympathetic to poor white folks, while the media remains hostile to poor black folks.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 12:25 pm ¶

11. Cara wrote:

    Hey, I’m from North Carolina and I’ve always known this “America” existed. I’m surprised that ppl are SURPRISED. However, Affirmative Action exists for these ppl too….so why don’t politicians talk about that as well.

    Being white and poor is too hard of an issue for politicians to handle becuase it is hard to seperate poor ppl from other poor ppl without looking at “whiteness” as an excape to poverty and discrimination. The only thing these poor whites have to do is 1. move away from home, 2. cut their hair and dress ‘well’, and 3. drop their accent….and the world is their oyster.

    I say this from experience ppl! You can claim the mountains as your home, but as long as you don’t seem like one of “those” ppl then they are in the clear like all other whites in regards to RACE issues and economic issues.

    Shame is what is at issue hear….to be black and from the ghetto is seen as something positive when you make something of yourself. Because to be black is sometimes synonymous with being poor in some ppls eyes. It’s a more realistic/believeable experience. But for whites, if you were poor it’s just easier to not say you were. Only recently have I seen famous ppl (acters like Hilary Swank, and Philip S. Hoffman) mention coming form the trailer park or a single parent home. It’s like these folks are coming out of the woodwork b/c now it’s OK to let ppl know that they stuggled also.

    I feel like maybe it’s a move toward looking at poverty (and race for that matter) in another light……for better or for worse…..but when you look at poverty you have to look at WHITENESS AS PRIVILEDGE. Race is what seperates poor whites from all other poor ppl. Maybe this is a steping stone to debunk a lot of stereotypes of POC. But I’m not sure…..the public will probably see these whites as the acception, like successful POC are seen as acceptions.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 12:35 pm ¶

12. Kavita wrote:

    I spent much of my childhood at friends’ homes in trailer parks, so I definitely concur with Whoopi’s statement that “poor is poor” and the whole bootstrap philosophy is as much bull for poor whites as it is for poor PoC. I also recognize that poor peope, regardless of race, are most often treated by the rest of society with scorn and disrespect. So I don’t want my next statement to come off as overly harsh. But the scene of the father putting Pepsi in his child’s sippy-cup kind of incensed me. It doesn’t take a whole lot of education or common sense to figure out that is a really bad idea. But there is no sense of condemnation or outrage from the View ladies. Its, “what can we do to help?” Contrast that to poor WoC–whenever we slip up in our parenting skills, its looked at with digust, not sympathy. We are totally villified. I’m not saying that “what can we do to help” is not the right response. But the double standard kills me.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 1:04 pm ¶

13. A.D. Nix wrote:

    Diane Sawyer’s tone was giving me the willies. Like, she finally found some poor people she could revere and really feel for.

    It’s really bringing to mind The True Meaning of Pictures the documentary about Shelby Lee Adams and his photographic portrayals of Appalachia – not necessarily because I think Sawyer orchestrated apocryphal “hill people” displays on the Adams model. But I don’t trust ABC to do this without making it a sensationalistic melodrama for class voyeurism.

    Exotifying poverty (which the piece may or may not do) and locating it far far away either on the body of a racial other or way, way up in the hills is one way of making some people feel like they have clean hands, have no part in what makes and keeps poor people poor, and so have no obligation to do anything. Oh, also, if it’s located way over there, and happening to them, then it couldn’t possibly happen to you because you’re over here. A completely different place.

    The issue of whiteness and poverty is a difficult one to parse out. Bodies of color carry poverty whether or not they live in it (ie, as a black woman, I’m poor until I prove otherwise) and it has become an assumed inchoate state of nature. White bodies living in poverty trigger affinity sympathy (”That poor girl. That handsome boy.”) and questions like “How did this happen to these people?” I’m sure they’ll be getting into systems and industry and government involvement throughout history in ways only glossed over when discussing urban (close-in, non-white) poverty.

    Must. treat. differently. Wouldn’t want poor whites and non-whites getting together and doing things . . .

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 1:28 pm ¶

14. slowroll wrote:

    A lot of great points already made.

    @9

    “Well if we start looking more into the poor white communities, we’d realize that it’s all a myth and most white people–like the rest of us–can’t pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Not all whites have silver spoons and legacies and political and business ties.”

    In fact, the majority of the people of Appalachia are descendants of “indentured servants” who survived (less than 25% did) and then were faced with the fact that colonial America was a slave-based economy. They had no skills that would allow them to become artisans, no chance of becoming wealthy merchants, and thus had no option but to take to the hills. They sure as hell “bootstrapped” but only in the sense of surviving using nothing but one’s own recognizance. The very poverty of Appalachia today is testament to the utter BS of the Horatio Alger, “anyone can make it if they try” mythology.

    For more about this particular angle I recommend “The Redneck Manifesto” by Jim Goad. Yeah, the guy is a complete ass hole and I didn’t agree with many of his “interpretations,” but he does some good history in highlighting the (basically unknown) history of “indentured servitude.”

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 1:30 pm ¶

15. Kaizar wrote:

    I submitted this piece on NewsTrust as part of their week-long hunt for news and opinion on the black experience in America:
    http://newstrust.net/stories/37746

    (I’m the Associate Editor of the site)

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 1:37 pm ¶

16. slowroll wrote:

    To clarify, when I said colonial America was a “slave-based” economy (this was before the importation of African slaves began) I was highlighting the economic equivalence between ’slavery’ and ‘indentured servitude’. While they are economically the same (endless importation of unpaid labor), they are not functionally equivalent. I apologize if I came across as trying to pass them off as such.

    One myth I should bust to help folks understand my point: Indentured servitude was almost never “voluntary”, unless you count the choice between it and death that anyone caught begging for bread in England was offered. Poor people were literally rounded up and put on boats. The 50% that made it across really were treated much the same as the Africans who later took their place. The mythology of the enterprising “hey that sounds like a deal!” voluntary indentured servant is very useful for perpetuating/indoctrinating the Alger myth. Unfortunately, that mythology is also totally false.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 1:43 pm ¶

17. mar wrote:

    I saw the promos for this show and predicted to my husband and mother how the whites would be portrayed. However, I also thought that it was important to show that there are whites in the US who are poor, drug addicted with out of wedlock children, etc. However, I also knew that they would not be portrayed as shiftless and violent – just victims of circumstances. I also predicted that there would be an outpouring of support. I watched the show and felt the heartstring tug. Even the music was chosen to evoke sympathy and empathy.

    Yep, on the show the following week Diane spoke of the “outpouring” of offers of help. Even Pepsi said it would help to minimize the effect of Mountain Dew.

    It is in the best interest of financial and political leaders of this country (with the assistance of the MSM) to keep a black face on poverty and disfunction because it makes it easier to justify the concentration of wealth and resources. It is easier to campaign against welfare, health care, mortgage assistance, etc. if everyone pretends that the BLACKS are the only ones getting those handouts and they only need the handouts because they are shiftless, lazy, violent, disfuctional and refuse to grab hold of those bootstaps.

    It is so much neater to have:

    Poor=black
    welfare=black
    drugs=black
    violent=black
    affirmative action=black
    ills of the nation=black

    The message is -Yep, when things go wrong- It’s the fault of those BLACKS- this nation would be perfect I tell you – perfect without the BLACKS.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 2:06 pm ¶

18. nonogirl wrote:

    “Fighters dreamers survivors.”

    While I think this community and lifestyle need to receive some attention, I have a feeling that this mainstream news documentary is going to be quite biased and perhaps even negatively impact POC.

    These rural poor whites are painted in a heroic light, but if replaced with urban POC, the same program would call these people (not blatantly) “impoverished unrealistic moochers.”

    I think what’s happening is that since we are, after all, a “post-racial society “(yeah, right), there has been a real backlash against POC. Whites want to be assured that they are still “relevant” and what better way to do this than to claim victim status, as this news program inevitably will present them as.

    Having not seen the program, I am willing to bet that these themes will appear:

    “They” stole our jobs through exported manufacturing, when the factory-infrastructure was never adequate in this country to compete anyways and its the big companies, run mostly by white men, that have decided to export the jobs in the first place to line their own pockets.

    “They” are using up our welfare/social security benefits. “We” are not victim enough to get agencies set up to “help” us.

    Our education systems are failing us. Our government is failing us.

    Flash to some of the sons who no doubt serve in the Army, etc. Look at our sacrifices. Look at our patriotism.

    Woe is me. Dress anyone of these women up, tell them to keep quiet, and give them the same resume you give me, a woman of color. Who do you think will be interviewed?

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 2:12 pm ¶

19. Jaya wrote:

    I would completely disagree with you on the idea that the media affords poor whites with more compassion and perspective than they do poor minorities. Did you see CNN’s series examining Black America? There was plenty of compassion and complexity in that analysis.

    You just can’t take Bill O’Reilly’s views on Black America as representative of the media as a whole. The man is a notorious racist.

    Anyway, I fully agree with Whoopi. Poor is poor. Poor whites get shoved under the rug, just as poor blacks and poor latinos and poor native Americans and Asians.

    Personally, I believe affirmative action needs to be completely revamped, so that the focus moves off of race, and on to socio-economic status. There’s no reason why a poor white kid from Appalachia shouldn’t get the same extra points as a poor black kid from inner city Hartford. Systemic poverty is a much greater evil in this country than systemic racism. That may be controversial, but I really do believe it. Fix the poverty and classism that characterizes our country and racism will dissolve along with it.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 2:38 pm ¶

20. cm wrote:

    wow. haven’t watched the whole documentary, only these clips. but it seems to me one of the (many, large and glaring) differences between this doc and others on poor poc is the willingness to place these folks and their situations in a historical context. and one that is shown and recognized as an integral and honorable (if even in a kinda creepy romanticized way) part of American history.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 2:48 pm ¶

21. Jaya wrote:

    Yo, what the hell? I just read through some of your comments.. you take it as an uncontested fact that the media will give poor whites a rose colored portrait and villify poor blacks.

    Show me ONE comparable project of the mainstream media that does that. I’m not talking Bill O’Reilly or Fox News, not talking the standard sensationalistic bull you see on the 10 o’clock news. I’m talking about investigative journalism. I have never seen an investigative journalist who spent time with a group of people give up as blatantly racist a picture as you guys think they will.

    Again, a decent comparison should be the portrait of Black America done by CNN and Christiane Amanpour. It too went in depth into a society and tried to show all the complex variables that contributed to systemic poverty. They attached a hidden camera to a young father in the Bronx trying to find a menial job so he could get off welfare and support his family, so that viewers could see the blatant racism that employers treated him with. They had an in depth interview with scholar Michael Eric Dyson, another young father from the inner city who made it good, and his brother, who was not so lucky and is currently serving a life sentence. They talked honestly about police brutality, and racism within the black community. It was entirely even-handed.

    I just feel like y’all are comparing apple to oranges when you compare an excellent investigative journalist piece to the standard mainstream media sludge of inanity and sensationalism.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 2:52 pm ¶

22. cooper wrote:

    My understanding of poor whites is that they are the most disenfranchised group out there as they have no one looking out for them, no caucus, no activist groups,.

    Yet, I have always wondered why, given the fact so many people think 200 years of racial oppression and overt racism is not an excuse for the current plight of many African Americans, a much harsher standard is not applied to poor white people who suffered non of that? It seems the excuses for poor whites in Appalachia, Alabama and so forth are somehow…..acceptable despite the fact that they did not have to deal with the horrors resulting from slavery.

    This is the joke really.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 3:06 pm ¶

23. cb3n wrote:

    Not sure if anyone’s talked about this yet, I’m at work and haven’t gotten to read all of the comments, and I haven’t seen the special so I can’t comment directly about it, but another important part of the Appalachian poverty narrative in the mainstream media is the exclusion of the experiences of people of color living in the region. Despite common misconception, majority white doesn’t equal all white, and there are many non white people living in the historically troubled range that extends from Alabama to New York. These individuals and families suffer from the same crushing poverty as their white neighbors, while at the same time having to deal with living in regions that historically are hotbeds for hate groups and overtly racist policies and institutions.

    I think an important flipside to the question at the end of your post is:

    “Why do you think that media reports of poor rural areas frequently ignore the experiences of people of color? Why is poverty in the cities generally thought of as an ‘ethnic’ problem while poverty in the country is either ignored or considered the misfortune of whites?”

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 3:31 pm ¶

24. Daniel wrote:

    I get the feeling that either many people haven’t travel around the US or basically ignoring reality. (I don’t mean the readers of this site per se but people in general).

    In a way, I’m more surprised at how others are surprised at this topic. Poor whites have always existed, and the reasons for it range from tragically unfortunante to causing their own problems, and many in between. Some aspects of this are generational, as others have mention.
    Back in college, which was less than a decade ago, one of my professors mentioned how it’s interesting that many, most likely the majority, of college students in the area (Midwest) today are 1st generation. Same thing in other regions, but basically for a lot of these White students, it is their first time attending college or enjoying lifestyles which weren’t accesible to them, compared to how media portrays White people in general.

    Also, I think it would wise to not view them as a monolithic group, as other groups of people have often been presented as. There are quite a lot of light Caucasian Americans who had nothing to do with the racist actions of this country’s history, be it in their lifetimes or their forebearers. Sometimes, the guilt by association affects them too.

    All these news reports, t.v. shows, movies, entertainment, “infotainment”, some history books, etc. a lot of them have missing pieces regarding this subject, as like most topics, with not quite reflecting the whole picture of things.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 3:40 pm ¶

25. Some Guy wrote:

    “The declining coal industry leads to unemployment. ” — a coal industry owned and operated by whites.

    “Poorly-funded schools lead to high school dropouts.” — government run by white authorities.

    “An epidemic of toothrot is blamed on Moutain Dew addiction.” — the same soft drink industry owned and run by white folk.

    “A football player who feels alienated and leaves behind a college scholarship (after just 8 weeks) does so because of the pressures from back home, not because he found himself suddenly overmatched on the gridiron.” — pressured by his small-minded white family.

    … So, you see, white people themselves ARE being blamed for the ills of poor whites. But like everything else in the U.S. society, it’s rarely stated explicitly because everyone just sorta assumes white folk run everything. Inherent in the system.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 3:55 pm ¶

26. ktrujillo wrote:

    “The only thing these poor whites have to do is 1. move away from home, 2. cut their hair and dress ‘well’, and 3. drop their accent….and the world is their oyster.”

    This is untrue. There are plenty of poor people of all stripes who have been raised in households with sexual abuse, drug/alcohol addiction, lack of educational opportunities in primary and secondary school, inadequate nutrition…the list goes on. The notion that someone could just move, cut their hair (and drop their accent?) and instantly overcome their past strikes me as too close to the “bootstraps” fallacy that permeates conversations around poverty.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 3:58 pm ¶

27. Lola wrote:

    @ Jaya

    I don’t know how it works at other institutions but at the college I attended, Ohio State University, Appalachians were considered part of the Office of Minority Affairs. There were lots of poor whites who received OMA scholarships and attended college prep programs which were based on GPA, location, and family income.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 4:11 pm ¶

28. Rachel_in_WY wrote:

    I put in a stint teaching at the alternative school too, and the similarity of the situations and life experiences of the white and black students there really struck me. Most of them had at best one stable parent, all were receiving some form of gov’t support, almost all lived in the trailer parks out on the edge of town, etc.

    One of the things that was so depressing to me was the attitude that most of the other teachers had. Almost all of them assumed that within a few years the boys would all be in legal trouble or working a blue collar job, and the girls would be pregnant, living in the same old trailer park, receiving every form of public assistance they could get. This produced a kind of “why bother” attitude that irritated me. So in that way it was pretty equalizing. What was even more depressing to me was the degree to which the kids had internalized this, and couldn’t even imagine their lives being any different. It was hard work to get them (even those who had experienced the most academic success) to accept the free courses they could sign up for at the community college, or to look into the free job training that local companies provided. It’s like there’s a kind of inertia caused by years of systemic exclusion in both black and white poor communities that’s really difficult to overcome. And why would we expect them to be able to imagine life any other way? Being able to have an imagination about your future is a luxury reserved for those who have the privilege of options.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 4:18 pm ¶

29. Lizzie (greeneyedfem wrote:

    @ #9: “But if whites had to give a voice to poor whites, they’d be looking at a mirror image of themselves and have to recognize their privilege. ”

    Exactly. Well-said, CMyers.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 5:17 pm ¶

30. AverageBro wrote:

    All I can say is “wow”.

    Everytime Latoya and Carmen have me as a guest here, I’m floored by the level of intellectualism and well-worded opinions, even by those who don’t agree with me. This discourse has been quite interesting to say the least.

    My site (as some of you know) doesn’t delve into issues this deeply on a regular basis, but I hope you will all give AverageBro.com a look.

    Thanks again, Latoya!

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 5:23 pm ¶

31. G.K. wrote:

    @ktrujillo

    What Cara meant—or at least what I’m assuming she meant (correct me if I’m wrong) in her comment about poor whites was that since white folks are the majority anyway, poor whites have the privilege/option of hiding their poverty-stricken backgrounds by just getting rid of anything that would immediately identify them as “poor white trash” (accents,dress,etc.,) and just blend right into the mainstream with no problems. Being white, they wouldn’t have the baggage of being automatically associated with poverty and the negative stereotypes surrounding it because they’re the norm.

    @Jaya

    That’s already happened to affrimative action since it’s been ended state by state over the last ten years—it was voted out of existence here in Michigan nearly 3 years ago—but even the concentration on class-based needs hasn’t answered the question of how to retain the numbers of minority students that went drastically down after AA was dismantled.
    I totally disagree–systemic racism is STILL a greater evil than systemic poverty because it;s been entrenched for so damn long—they have practically always gone hand in hand,in terms of historically deliberately keeping communities of color poor & powerless. And believe me, it’s not going to all of a sudden just up and vanish just because class-based AA is now the norm.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 7:39 pm ¶

32. G.K. wrote:

    @Jaya

    If you scrool down further ontheis link,it tells how class-based AA is being applied:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 7:48 pm ¶

33. Meg wrote:

    Bill O’Reilly interviewed Diane Sawyer about this and basically blamed the ‘mountain people’ for not just getting up and moving away which i suspect is a reflection of a mindset (maybe political) that “i’ve earned what i have, why can’t you? i owe you nothing” . And watching recent coverage on the economic situation there is a bit of a blame the aspirational classes because they had the stupid idea that they deserve to own their own home…….

    I know i’m not being original in suggesting that race and economic class are getting tough to tease apart sometimes but maybe that’s why you don’t see too much dealing with poor whites, because it’s a lot harder to crap on the tough working class Bruce Springsteen style hero than it is to have a go at the ‘urban’ (i.e. minority) poor. So if the argument is that minorities are poor because they are lazy and don’t have the hard working american culture then “i don’t owe them anything, if Oprah can, they can” BUT, if there are poor white people then it kind of hurts the argument that there is something peculiar about communities who are disproportionately affected by poverty. It might lead to a few harsh truths which don’t fit neatly onto a bumper sticker. I think also if healthcare, welfare, minimum wage, etc are seen as “black issues” because ‘only lazy minorities are poor’, it is easier for comfy middle class to ignore.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 8:03 pm ¶

34. Side-eyer wrote:

    I’m having trouble formulating this as a coherent thought, but I’ll try to word it as best I can. Some other commenters have brought up the disparities in coverage such that viewers are led to believe that poor rural=white and poor urban=black/latino. (Obviously, this is a false statement.)

    It seems like this could help the media overlords paint more sympathetic pictures for whites than for blacks. For example, they can show rural poor people walking 8 miles each way for their GED classes and make it look wrenching in a way that it would be harder to do for digging in the couch for change and taking 3 buses (if only because it is not easy to film in buses).

    Are the rural poor easier to paint a sympathetic portrait of, regardless of race, because it’s easier to imagine how it’s hard to get out because of geographic limitations? Does this combination of both economic and physical barriers make it even easier to cover the supposedly all-white, rural poor in a less unflattering light?

    I really wonder what would happen if someone tried to do a special that showed poor people of all ethnicities in both urban and rural settings. I bet the tone would change….

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 8:17 pm ¶

35. jvansteppes wrote:

    I’m seeing a bit of an exaggeration here about the endless compassion afforded poor white people.
    Poor white people are certainly vilified as welfare recipients, unwed mothers/sluts, stupid and lazy etc even if racism isn’t an ingredient relied upon in their marginalization.
    It isn’t a situation one can change with a haircut.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 8:27 pm ¶

36. gatamala wrote:

    good points nonogirl~ I get the same feeling too.

    cb3n~as the great-granddaughter of folks that fled the North Georgia mountains for Ohio I appreciate you bringing us up.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 9:22 pm ¶

37. April wrote:

    @Jaya:

    First, that CNN special was done by Soledad O’Brien.

    My full list of criticisms of that special would take up pages, but suffice it to say that it was extremely stereotypical. Note that the Diane Sawyer special was on one specific geographical population, which happens to be white and poor. The CNN special, on the other hand, pretty much passed off black and poor as inherently equal. For the most part, the women were shown as babymamas and the men were either in prison or out of a job. The few middle-class/upper-class blacks shown were categorized as exceptions to the rule. Moreover, it was suggested that being successful=being “whiter,” by either moving into a white community or dating/marrying a white person. And, of course, those people couldn’t be really happy, either: too much fretting about how their white family or neighbors or co-workers saw them.

    So, no, I don’t think it provided much perspective at all.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 10:05 pm ¶

38. Bethany wrote:

    I’m not going to pretend to be a native Fistowner here or anything (I’ve only lived here since August), but while this neighborhood certainly has its share of poverty it is nothing like Beirut! You must have been in Kensington or Port Richmond…small but important differences. That’s all that I have to say, haha. Otherwise I very much enjoyed this post.

    Posted 24 Feb 2009 at 10:23 pm ¶

39. CMyers wrote:

    @ Jaya

    Sweety…you’ve proven our point by equating blacks with poverty via comparing a documentary about Blacks to a documentary about poverty. Check yourself.

    Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 12:37 am ¶

40. AverageBro wrote:

    @ Bethany

    You are probably correct. This incident was about 4-5 years ago. I didn’t stick around long enough to learn the proper name for the neighborhood, I found out after the fact when I described how I ended up there to friend. It could very well have not been Fishtown.

    But whatever it was, that sh*t DID look like Beirut. Seriously. It’s probably gentrified by now, but hey…

    Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 2:39 am ¶

41. timarasa wrote:

    yeah, i saw that same o’reilly interview on youtube a couple of days ago…that man can gechya under the skin like no other. funny thing is, yes, the coal industry in appalachia is starting to go on the decline, but the US still gets 33% of its coal from there (on top of that, the coal found there is of a high enough grade for not just energy production, but also steel manufacture in the US and as export into other countries). sadly enough, if for the coal alone, it’s in corporate interests to maintain strong communities (i.e. the workforce) in that region. personally, this whole mountain coal extraction business is nonsense to me and should be scaled down as alternative energy technologies are scaled up, but i guess it’s a necessary evil for now. also in o’reilly’s presumption in thinking these people to be complete idiots for not just leaving and going to “miami” (yeah, he actually said that; i guess he wants them to swamp out the cubans) for better jobs, he totally missed how for many of these communities there is an important sense of cultural heritage (other than incest and ignorance as he thinks there only is), which would definitely disintegrate precipitously if huge numbers of people picked up and left for the four corners of the country. i guess since this type of ‘white’ culture is a product of perpetually impoverished people, it’s not worth saving in o’reilly’s mind. i guess he would prefer evacuating all the poor white people and truck in poor brown & black people to mine the coal and conform more to the face of poverty he’s been hyping up on his show.

    which kind of brings me to the real point i wanted to make and kind of piggybacks of off jvansteppes’ argument of white poverty being equally vilified in the media. the comments on that o’reilly youtube clip and on other sites i’ve seen were ‘interesting’ to say the least (as expected for youtube anyway); there were quite a few derogatory comments about how most of those poor white people are “scots-irish monkeys” anyway and that it’s the “germanics” that have contributed anything worthwhile to the country. i thought to myself “wow! and the great white coalition falls apart as we speak!” it made me think of that irish twins posting from several months back (http://www.racialicious.com/2008/09/19/film-festival-pick-irish-twins/) and how “othered” white subgroups (ethnic and socioeconomic) still can be, especially if they’re not ‘repping for the team’ like they’re supposed to.

    Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 2:40 am ¶

42. Lisa J wrote:

    This links in partially to what I’ve been thinking and saying a lot in other forums and to a friendly acquaintance (more like a friend of a friend who was dissing immigrants and “lazy” people who would benefit from Obama’s anti-middle class policies, yes she went there) that your socio-economic status in life has more to do with your parent’s income, class, education and the educational opportunities. Basically what someone else said, the pull yourself up by your bootstraps thing is some crap. Yes there are some folks who come from shocking poverty who manage by sheer grit to “make it” into the middle or upper middle class or even to wealth but they are the minority and often it is more a combination of luck, talent and/or intelligence, and a very strong resiliant innately confident psychological profile.

    I know it is difficult for poor whites, and I’ve seen other whites and blacks make derogatory comments about “poor white trash” and even had my own mother express irritation at learning that I gave money to a homeless white man. However, though I know it isn’t easy for them to escape from poverty, it is true that if they are able to learn how to dress like the mainstream, to speak properly, and have an overall mainstream amount of hygeine and appearance they can more easily slip into the mainstream just like fair-skinned blacks can opt to pass. I have met a few white people, 2 of whom were college profs of mine, who mentioned coming from poor or blue collar backgrounds, one of whom said he was one of the first Head Start babies, and another who was a former supervisor who said his Dad often drank up the family paycheck and whose Mom worked at the local parochial school and cooked for the priests to get money and tuition for her kids. In each of these cases,I would never have guessed that this was there background and assumed they were middle to upper middle class. One even shared that their child from an early marriage had sunk back into poverty. However, I have seen instances often of blacks, me included, being automatically assumed by whites, blacks and other minorities, automatically assume despite coming from very middle class backgrounds and dressing well etc. Not to say that some whites might not peg them but I bet it is pretty rare especially when/if they adapt as Pink Floyd said “a club tie and firm handshake”. But as I said, that is the exception but often some folks who even came from a not so white collar/middle class background who make it out don’t see it. I had an arguement with a friend during the election where I was almost to the point of tears when explaining why some one like Obama with his more humble beginnings was much more admirable for his acheivements than McCain the son of an Admiral and finally had to point out that she with her college degree as the first person in her family to go, and who has made a great salary (she is white) had in many ways more of a hurdle than me b/c though we didn’t have lots of money either and my folks split when I was little, my Mom was white collar, my Mom has a Master’s Degree, her Mom went to college, and most of her 11 big brother went to and graduated from college and my Dad went to college (dropped out senior year-dumb) and his Mom went to college to. So it was never a mind set of if I would go to college it was when I would go, never a question that I would be in or near the middle class. That is what FINALLY got her to hear what I was saying.

    Sorry for the long comment (per usual from me Phew, I’m doing this on my crackberry and my thumbs are tired!!

    Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 4:07 am ¶

43. Lisa J wrote:

    Again with the poor editing, meant to say “instances often of blacks, me included, being automatically assumed by … to be poor, despite…” At least I have the excuse of writing late at night after not being able to fall back to sleep and having sore crackberry thumbs!

    Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 4:20 am ¶

44. A.D. Nix wrote:

    In watching the special I got an even more sympathetic narrative than expected.* I was also reminded about my disdain for Diane Sawyer’s condescending reportage.

    @ Lisa J
    This is kind of what I was trying to say.

    It seems like a lot of people are in denial about how white privilege works. Yes, even poor white people have it despite the disadvantages of poverty. Their invisible knapsacks may be lighter but a brown person with the same economic disadvantages doesn’t have one at all.

    That’s something even Ken Chennault can’t buy.

    And when poor whites are vilified, whiteness – the whole umbrella including the “Scotch Irish” and “Germanics” – does not go on trial. That would be something quite different than a few O’Reilly outliers ranking, among whites, who is the “best” kind of white.

    @April
    I am so glad someone finally addressed the CNN special. I didn’t even know where to begin.

    @ CMeyers
    you’ve proven our point by equating blacks with poverty via comparing a documentary about Blacks to a documentary about poverty.

    Also, this.

    Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 10:00 am ¶

45. Tara K. wrote:

    I’m from Appalachia and this special made me want to puke. Diane Sawyer coming in and doing this piece made me nauseous. She touted her Kentucky roots, though she’s from Lexington — another world from the poor parts of Eastern Kentucky. Having come from a town with a 50% high school graduation rate, I hate how these people come in then focus the damn piece on “the children.” Are they gonna give a fuck about those children in a few years if they have meth problems or several illegit kids? No. All those damn adults there began as those kids too.

    The issue of white poverty, though, is difficult to experience as a white person who came from it. When I went to college (first in the family and based on sheer financial luck), I was the Other, a thousand times over. Everyone around me seemed to think “white” and “middle-class” were inherently inclusive of each other, and I had no idea why. It took me a long time to even see that. I could only think of my family being on food stamps, the winter we were missing an entire wall.

    And I’m not saying any of this to get pity, sympathy, etc. — it’s just that we feel very invisible, but this type “documentary” doesn’t help either.

    And why in the holy hell did Sawyer focus so much on the damn teeth? I mean, there are more critical health issues there. Hell, there are town’s like mine who still depend heavily on — I kid you not — traveling doctors who come visit once a month or so. We have a dinky hospital that can’t even fix a broken leg — they send you on to the next county.

    I’m sorry. I know I ranted. There are few opportunities to rant about this, though.

    Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 10:08 am ¶

46. little mixed girl wrote:

    I haven’t see the special, and probably won’t be able to because I’m overseas.

    First, wtf on the Detroit comment?
    I’m from Michigan and it’s like every other person who is NOT from MI has decided to line up and take a shit on Detroit!
    Why not talk about LA or NYC?
    Oh, wait, those places are filled with rich people, no poverty there…

    Second, I don’t see how this report is shocking. I’ve known about the poor people in Appalachia for years now. Heck, I am pretty sure that Primetime Live and 20/20 have done some features on them before.

    White people talking about other white people? Is it any surprise that the average white person might feel something for someone that looks like them?
    I’m not saying that they should, but I think it’s a lot easier to be harsher on someone that you don’t know and that you don’t see as being a part of your family/circle.

    I think there should be more discussion of the poor in America and the reasons why they are in that situation and what they and others can do to improve that situation.

    Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 10:23 am ¶

47. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ A.D.Nix
    I meant to add:

    * I want all people to be given this much consideration. Not for the subjects in question to be given less.

    Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 10:37 am ¶

48. kari wrote:

    I saw this the other night and could not help but think how similar this situation is to many on rural Native American Reservations…

    Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 10:47 am ¶

49. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ Tara K.
    Don’t apologize for that rant. That was good stuff.
    I was waiting for them to link oral health to heart disease or something. If you look at states with the highest rates of tooth loss and the states with the largest number of deaths by heart attack, there is serious overlap (Kentucky is on both lists, for example). And dentists and oral surgeons are becoming increasingly important in helping to catch diabetes and heart disease early on and to keep patient’s entire body healthy.

    But no. Nothing about that. Just “Mountain Dew is messing up their mouths.”

    Maybe it’s easier to talk about children because they aren’t fully in control of their lives making them much more “sympathetic.”

    Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 11:56 am ¶

50. Ruchama wrote:

    For anyone interested in seeing the whole special, it’s up at the ABC website. Click “Free Episodes” and then “20/20.”

    Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 12:43 pm ¶

51. CDF wrote:

    I saw parts of this special since I’m not that far off from what is known as the Appalachians and wondered who was covered. I didn’t know DSawyer was from KY though it didn’t surprise me as to why that area was covered. I’m in the eastern part of TN and its basically the same around here. There’s also VA and NC along the Appalachains with similar situations.

    Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 1:23 pm ¶

52. Kat wrote:

    Can we finally admit that the whole “pull yourself by your bootstraps” mantra is a complete fallacy?

    Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 4:29 pm ¶

53. Ruchama wrote:

    I really wish they’d gone further into why the kid who got the football scholarship still couldn’t afford college. It was almost presented as just “one of those things that happens sometimes,” but there has to be something behind it, like what did the scholarship not cover?

    Posted 25 Feb 2009 at 6:53 pm ¶

54. Pheagan wrote:

    @ Jaya– what about the Hurricane Katrina looters/scavengers media coverage? White people picking soon-to-rot food out of stores were scavenging, black people were looting. That’s about as good a side-by-side comparison of mainstream media coverage that I can think of.

    Posted 26 Feb 2009 at 4:19 am ¶

55. Aaron wrote:

    I haven’t seen the whole piece yet but it seems relevant to bring up what a journalism show on white poverty means in the context of the current economic crisis.

    Studies (like Martin Gilen’s article “How the Poor Became Black”) have shown that in times of widespread economic recession in the U.S., media coverage of the poor shifts significantly. Not only are stories on poor people portrayed more sympathetically, but there are often sharp increases in the number of poor white people interviewed/photographed/etc. This is a contrast to times of non-recession (for the middle/upper classes), where media images of the poor are overwhelmingly and disproportionately black. This has been going on since the government started to shift funding from the War on Poverty to the war against Vietnam (before that time media, particularly t.v., didn’t have the same influence on public opinion).

    We’ve seen this in a lot of media since the stock market’s downturn, though most articles have focused on the “newly poor”; people who are “so ashamed” and “uninformed” on how to access public benefits, etc. being portrayed in a positive light. And many of them white people. What’s a little different about the 20/20 piece is that it covers a historically poor population that rarely sees media attention. Though we have to wonder, why now? Why do this story now? Why is it ok now to talk about poor white folks in Appalachia who have been broke and hurting for generations?

    Posted 26 Feb 2009 at 1:01 pm ¶

56. Phil Deeze wrote:

    The poster that mentioned being tired of the “pulling yourself by your bootstraps” mantra: I’m with you on that.

    Will Rogers had a quote on this that I’m going to flub but it basically said that there’s people in this world that want credit for hitting a homerun when they started out on third base.

    Posted 27 Feb 2009 at 4:17 pm ¶

57. Spinster wrote:

    “ABC’s Diane Sawyer, a Kentuckian (from Louisville, not the hills) herself, tells a well-rendered story of the invisible residents of her homestate with the sort of compassion and restraint seldom afforded when the media depicts poor minorities.”

    And this is one of the reasons why I’m glad that I didn’t watch the special. I may have gotten very angry if I did.

    And hello Average Bro. I go under another name on your blog and read it at least once a week.

    Posted 28 Feb 2009 at 6:25 pm ¶

58. DMoon wrote:

    Of course there are poor whites. I grew up around them. The difference is no matter how poor they are many belive that they are better than a Black person, regardless of social-economic background. In addition, poor whites are seen as a social condition and not a cultural or genetic one that is often accorded to explain the supposed perpetual dysfunction of Blacks.

    Posted 01 Mar 2009 at 3:31 am ¶

59. Tara K. wrote:

    I can’t believe how offensive some of the ignorant comments on here are. As a white girl who grew up poor in Appalachian Kentucky and has seen how hard it is to climb out of that, I’m devastated by comments about how poor white people just need to “move out of the town,” and “drop their accents.” Obviously, you have no concept of the financial means necessary to move out of your town, or how people treat you for that accent, or the cultural biases against you. Or even the difficulty of leaving the only culture where you don’t feel disadvantaged.

    Let me tell you how “easy” it is to get out of Appalachia.”

    First, grow up poor. Grow up with a wall missing from your house. Grow up in an illiterate family. Grow up never having known a college attendee.

    Two, grow up culturally and geographically isolated . Grow up forty miles from a school, a library, or a place that sells those “nice clothes” you think we can so easily put on, if we even had the damn money. Grow up on different foods and vocabulary that people don’t recognize, that they (even other white Kentuckians not from Appalachia) will make fun of you for.

    Three, watch all your friends do drugs and have children as teenagers. Watch them drop out of school. Watch them become wives and mothers your sophomore year.

    Four, face the lack of familial support, financial support, or even societal support if you do try to get out. Your family won’t understand why you’d want to leave or go to college, and they sure as hell won’t have any money to help you out.

    Five, if you do get out, even just to another part of Kentucky, face the assumptions that you are trash, ignorant, and lesser. Learn that whites are privileged, but not universally. The privileged whites teach you this quickly. Learn that, despite finishing high school, which you were proud of, you are unprepared due to the inferiority of the school you went to. Feel ignorant and have others reiterate that for you. Learn that the accent is not so easy to drop and that if you every honestly answer the question, “Where are you from?” it doesn’t matter how well you try that northern accent.

    I’m not asking for pity, and I’m not saying that my experience is comparable to other experiences; I’m not trying to start an oppression competition. I realize the advantage of my skin color, if not locally at least globally. I know that.

    But I just couldn’t take the comment on how “easy” it is for poor, white Appalachians. The only way I got out was by using the life insurance from my brother’s life insurance, in itself a horrible damn way to get out. That was my only chance, though. So I don’t want to hear about how damn easy it is.

    Posted 01 Mar 2009 at 4:30 pm ¶

60. Tracey wrote:

    @ Tara K.
    – yeah. While there is defiantly priviledge it is not easy to just move for anyone, and the stigma associated with poverty does follow one around. It seems some people out there don’t take into consideration that if you can barely put food on the table chances are you don’t have the cash reserves to up and move. Even if a white person from a poor, rural background “makes it” they still might be subjected to listening to classist jokes or jokes about rednecks/hill billies/southerners/country folk/ white trash etc. And I don’t know about where you live, but in some places you might even have to deal with middle/upper class white people appropiating what they believe is “redneck” style/culture all the while looking down on people. Kate Marie Yoas has a great essay called “I went to college and all I got was this white trash t-shirt.”

    I also am furious about the difereance in coverage. In seems, that from at least Reagan and his infamous construction of the “welfare queen”, the povert of POC has been viewed as an affect of laziness, etc. And I don’t mean in investigative reports exclusivelly, but in the words used, the way the issue is framed, etc. Even when young white women were the main recpients of welfare, it seemed as though all the stories you saw on welfare were about WOC with several out-of-wedlock children by several different men. I’m surprised and saddened to see that some people on here don’t see at least a little disparity.

    Posted 01 Mar 2009 at 11:18 pm ¶

61. DMoon wrote:

    can’t believe how offensive some of the ignorant comments on here are. As a white girl who grew up poor in Appalachian Kentucky and has seen how hard it is to climb out of that, I’m devastated by comments about how poor white people just need to “move out of the town,” and “drop their accents.”

    I don’t think anyone here is saying it was easy for a poor White to get out, but I am sorry, poor whites do not have to deal with having science, economist, journalists, et al stating that your state of poverty is a genetic and cultural affliction. There are books, (see the bell curve among others) that state that our state of poverty is solely the affliction of low IQ, poor morals and the vagaries of Black culture. At least with poor Whites they have the potential to improve by virtue of them being White.

    I lived next to a poor white family who refused to acknowledge us as human beings. The father was an alcoholic and the wife looked harried, but they thought it was perfectly acceptable that their unruly kids could call us n*ggers if we rode our bikes pass their house. Poverty may be difficult, but I have never seen any kind of solidarity from Whites and Blacks who labor under the same socio-economic conditions. Never. The town was dirt poor but each group lived seperate lives. All I see is that even though the white person is struggling under bone crushing poverty, I still saw the implication that it was better for than being Black.

    Posted 02 Mar 2009 at 2:15 am ¶

62. Rachel_in_WY wrote:

    On a related note, there was an Al Roker special dealing with (white, suburban Seattle) prescription drug addicts on MSNBC this weekend that mostly painted the addicts as innocent victims who needed help in order to return to their respectable lives. It’s amazing how different the rhetoric is when they’re talking about oxycontin rather than crack.

    Posted 02 Mar 2009 at 12:32 pm ¶

63. Nicola_DC wrote:

    Reading some class materials about welfare in the US and the public’s views, this morning on the train I happened to start on “”‘Race Coding’ and White Opposition to Welfare”, by Martin Gilens, published in the American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, no. 3 (Sept 1996). This is an often cited article w/r/t media attention to important issues and the implicit racial “coding” of some of these issues on the media and by politicians and campaigns. I thought it might be useful to anyone who is more interested in this subject.

    Gilens uses surveys completed by whites that include general appraisals of racial attitudes and specific appraisals of welfare situations. He finds from his survey that the respondents thought, “Poor people are lazy”, more than twice as often when reading a description of a welfare family with a black mother versus the same welfare family situation with a white mother. The support for welfare spending was double when the welfare mother was white.

    Look it up if you’re interested – sorry I couldn’t find a free link , but if you have any university contacts, most academic article search programs should have free access.

    Posted 02 Mar 2009 at 3:51 pm ¶

64. Angela wrote:

    I wanted to address the comments towards the end particularly from Tara K., Tracey, and D.Moon.

    I think the fact that people ignore your background and struggles Tara K is part of the larger problem that Tracey, D. Moon and others are ignoring.

    It is by design. Race was created so that we would not look at class. If we go back indentured servants were African and the Scots-Irish. The Jamestown Colony et. al were corporations. They became increasingly worried about the possibility of unrest as these workers began to demand more–land, better treatment etc. Race was developed to divide and so that we would not look at class but also so that these corporations would not have to pay freedom dues. This idea solved a lot of problems. When the moneyed class does not want to deal with race they use a “black” face and this shuts down all conversation. We don’t examine how deeply class issues have been a perpetual problem in this society. The history of the loss of life of workers dying in coal mines or factories through active protests or unsafe conditions is probably greater in number of loss of life than any war fought on these shores. Race has been a handy blinder for discussing class in any real way. That is why it was developed after all.

    This is the problem–”whiteness” is a manufactured idea for moneyed people who have set up a very effective divide and conquer scheme from the beginning. We don’t know enough of our history as Americans to unravel it. We must learn more, contextualize more to understand it.

    Posted 02 Mar 2009 at 4:59 pm ¶

65. Tracey wrote:

    @ Angela
    What made you think I was ignoring the larger part of her post?

    Posted 02 Mar 2009 at 9:29 pm ¶

66. Angela wrote:

    Sorry, I think I misread your original post.

    Posted 03 Mar 2009 at 6:25 am ¶

67. pmb wrote:

    Thanks for this post and all the comments. I haven’t taken the time to watch the 20/20 special, but in watching the clip from The View, I couldn’t help but notice how Diane Sawyer lifts up the Scotch/Irish as important to the foundations of the USA, and therefore, we owe them a debt.

    A couple things about that. First, in all this fighting for the frontier, there were actual people that the early white settlers killed, doing the work of genocide on behalf of the elites back East. Those indigenous nations are completely invisible in Sawyer’s words.

    Second, if “we” owe the Scotch/Irish settlers a debt (i.e. “reparations”) for their work in building the nation and how that work left them vulnerable even centuries later, don’t we also owe reparations to the communities descended from those who were enslaved? Or any number of other exploited communities.

    Posted 03 Mar 2009 at 11:26 am ¶