U.S. Politics

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's also too easy to write them off as racists. Don't get me wrong, lots of them are racists...

I liked that sentence more than it probably warrants, and probably for the wrong reason.

1 hour ago, Jon said:

Not 'feeling the Bern',

Nah. He's the least unappealing of all the various dodgepots in the races. But would I get a tattoo of him and rave about him? would I heck as like! America's great and most of the murcans I've met were great too. But their political system and especially the presidential races are broken as ****. 

[HanoiVillan]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

I liked that sentence more than it probably warrants, and probably for the wrong reason.

Yes, my sentence there was a bit ridiculous. The first sentence should have said 'It's too easy to write them ALL of as racists', but too late now.

[maqroll]

In many ways, the United States was founded as a white supremacist state, where blacks and indigenous people had no rights and worse. What we are witnessing now with the Trump phenomenon is the pathetic last dying gasps of a bloated old whale of white supremacy. Working and middle class whites have seen their position in the traditional hierarchy downgraded, so when a guy like Trump comes along and starts throwing red meat their way, they eat it up. It's a fundamentally racist campaign in a country that is stretched at the seams with racist incidents, like all the extrajudicial police killings of blacks, and the church massacre in South Carolina. It's a really ugly spectacle.

[HanoiVillan]

58 minutes ago, maqroll said:

In many ways, the United States was founded as a white supremacist state, where blacks and indigenous people had no rights and worse. What we are witnessing now with the Trump phenomenon is the pathetic last dying gasps of a bloated old whale of white supremacy. Working and middle class whites have seen their position in the traditional hierarchy downgraded, so when a guy like Trump comes along and starts throwing red meat their way, they eat it up. It's a fundamentally racist campaign in a country that is stretched at the seams with racist incidents, like all the extrajudicial police killings of blacks, and the church massacre in South Carolina. It's a really ugly spectacle.

Absolutely key point, IMO. Think it has to be the main lens through which American history and politics is studied, although not the only one obviously.

[chrisp65]

Hmmm, not too sure. But then I'm new to the whole American history thing.

I think if you take the 1860's as the starting point of the United States, from that point onward the rights of blacks, indigenous and Mexicans were written in to the law. 

They may not have been enforced well, they may have been ignored locally over great swathes of land and doubtless there have been 150 years of terrible abuses. But I don't think the U.S. was founded as a white supremacist state.

What it was, was a classic example like every state, of those in power writing the rules to protect themselves and preserve their advantage.

As always, happy to be educated on this one....

[blandy]

Didn't they have a bit of an issue with, like, slavery and stuff? -  I think that was a teensy bit racist, maybe  - you know a bit white supremacisty. Just sayin'

[HanoiVillan]

49 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Hmmm, not too sure. But then I'm new to the whole American history thing.

I think if you take the 1860's as the starting point of the United States, from that point onward the rights of blacks, indigenous and Mexicans were written in to the law. 

They may not have been enforced well, they may have been ignored locally over great swathes of land and doubtless there have been 150 years of terrible abuses. But I don't think the U.S. was founded as a white supremacist state.

What it was, was a classic example like every state, of those in power writing the rules to protect themselves and preserve their advantage.

As always, happy to be educated on this one....

It wasn't founded as a 'white supremacist state' if you mean like apartheid South Africa or something. The founding of the country had little to do with race. However, it grew rich off the keeping of Africans as slaves and the terrority gained through the genocide of native Americans. 

I don't know why, especially, you would take the 1860's as the starting point of the United States - it seems somewhat arbitrary to me. However, even if you were to do that, you would need to recognise that for the following century, black people faced systematic discrimination in every aspect of life. Segregation between white and black communities existed throughout the entire country, de facto through the north and de jure in the south. The list of ways in which black people were discriminated against would be so extensive it would be boring to read. 

I honestly don't think you can make sense of either of the American parties or their political strategies, the debates around crime, guns, prisons and drugs, and even issues like education, welfare and housing without addressing racial points on the way. 

[maqroll]

4 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

if we write off working class white voters as racist shitbags from the off, then there's no way of persuading them to change their minds later.

It should be said that Sanders is polling high with white working class voters, particularly in the north and midwest. Tonights results are going to be massive, one way or the other. I'm loving the fact that Hillary is being made to sweat it out again. 

[meregreen]

3 hours ago, maqroll said:

In many ways, the United States was founded as a white supremacist state, where blacks and indigenous people had no rights and worse. What we are witnessing now with the Trump phenomenon is the pathetic last dying gasps of a bloated old whale of white supremacy. Working and middle class whites have seen their position in the traditional hierarchy downgraded, so when a guy like Trump comes along and starts throwing red meat their way, they eat it up. It's a fundamentally racist campaign in a country that is stretched at the seams with racist incidents, like all the extrajudicial police killings of blacks, and the church massacre in South Carolina. It's a really ugly spectacle.

Actually the United States was born with a far more Democratic ethos than Britain had at the time. The principle of " all men are created equal," even if they were only refering to the white race. was not something accepted in Britain. The right to vote was extended to all White American men.In our own country, only property owners were awarded the vote.For their time, the 13 States were quite radical. Compared to now of course, we would regard those times as not truly democratic. But as with the French Revolution, The AmericanDeclaration of independence and subsequent Bill of rights, Constitution etc. helped move democracy forward immeasurably.

[maqroll]

From 1776 until the mid 19th century, most states had a property requirement to vote as well.

[tonyh29]

7 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

What are we to make of the 3.8 million people that voted UKIP in 2015

That in 2010 they were probably voting labour ...

 

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Didn't they have a bit of an issue with, like, slavery and stuff? -  I think that was a teensy bit racist, maybe  - you know a bit white supremacisty. Just sayin'

 

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

The founding of the country had little to do with race. However, it grew rich off the keeping of Africans as slaves and the terrority gained through the genocide of native Americans. 

I don't know why, especially, you would take the 1860's as the starting point of the United States - it seems somewhat arbitrary to me. 

I honestly don't think you can make sense of either of the American parties or their political strategies, the debates around crime, guns, prisons and drugs, and even issues like education, welfare and housing without addressing racial points on the way. 

I kind of based my admittedly arbitrary thinking on that 1860's thing, the Civil War, Lincoln, abolition of slavery, emancipation proclamation, the 13th amendment, the 14th amendment. All that malarkey. Surely it was a profoundly different country after the 1860's? In law, if not in day to day life.

I do appreciate there was an 'america' before the civil war, but I really don't know enough to get in too deep.

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I kind of based my admittedly arbitrary thinking on that 1860's thing, the Civil War, Lincoln, abolition of slavery, emancipation proclamation, the 13th amendment, the 14th amendment. All that malarkey. Surely it was a profoundly different country after the 1860's? In law, if not in day to day life.

I do appreciate there was an 'america' before the civil war, but I really don't know enough to get in too deep.

I wasn't really disagreeing, just sort of hinting that there might have been a legacy, or ingrained (and even now, perhaps still is, in parts) racist aspect, wherever we place a starting date. You probably know more about it than I do to be fair.

[HanoiVillan]

49 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

I kind of based my admittedly arbitrary thinking on that 1860's thing, the Civil War, Lincoln, abolition of slavery, emancipation proclamation, the 13th amendment, the 14th amendment. All that malarkey. Surely it was a profoundly different country after the 1860's? In law, if not in day to day life.

I do appreciate there was an 'america' before the civil war, but I really don't know enough to get in too deep.

If I said 'since 1991, communist rule hasn't been particularly important in eastern Europe', you would probably say 'but why are you starting in 1991', right? I mean, to make sense of Poland today, you'd need to consider Poland before 1989. 

Yes, America was a profoundly different country after the 1860's, but as I said, legal discrimination against African Americans continued openly for a century afterwards, hardly a trivial period of time, and still continues to this day in the form of stop & frisk policies, sentencing disparities for black and white offenders etc. 

[OutByEaster?]

I should say that my post on Ordinary Americans wasn't meant as a dig at the whole nation - it was in response to the question as to how Trump and his supporters get so much criticism and the likes of Bush and Obama and most of the other candidates seem immune even with equally poor policies - I was making the point that with the others, it seemed like America felt like it was tricked and with Trump, if he gets in it'll be a deliberate choice. I appreciate that they want someone different to the last bunch of liars and crooks, but I'd have hope they'd have aimed for "better", it's all well and good being sick of these lying assholes, but going out and picking one that can't be bothered to lie isn't really an improvement.

 

[El Zen]

3 hours ago, meregreen said:

Actually the United States was born with a far more Democratic ethos than Britain had at the time. The principle of " all men are created equal," even if they were only refering to the white race. was not something accepted in Britain. The right to vote was extended to all White American men.In our own country, only property owners were awarded the vote.For their time, the 13 States were quite radical. Compared to now of course, we would regard those times as not truly democratic. But as with the French Revolution, The AmericanDeclaration of independence and subsequent Bill of rights, Constitution etc. helped move democracy forward immeasurably.

I agree with three fifths of this post.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Seems it'll be a good night for both Trump & Clinton.

 

[villakram]

Fox is brilliant viewing right now... Krauthammer looks like he'll off himself later  and now one of the Jeb! super PAC head honchos is on MSNBC making a fool of himself, and I thought I'd miss Stewart and Colbert!

 

[tonyh29]

Losing Ohio where it was winner takes all might have just stopped Trump winning the republican nomination outright according to some reports ?

[maqroll]

2 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

Losing Ohio where it was winner takes all might have just stopped Trump winning the republican nomination outright according to some reports ?

It slows him down to the point where the establishment GOP might challenge him at the convention, something that is unheard of in modern times.