Are Black people anywhere close to proportionally represented among the anti-mask protestors? If not, why not? Do you think they find masks comfortable or hate "freedom"?
This "peculiar American form of 'freedom;" didn't come out of nowhere. It's always been connected importantly to race. Dr. Johnson- 'How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of N*groes?''
True, it didn't come "out of nowhere." But nor did it come out of a desire to oppress blacks, or a belief that they are inferior and undeserving. It came out of English country ideologies in opposition to court prerogative. It has replicated itself in the hinterlands of this country for hundreds of years. "Behavioral path dependence," they call it now.
Why don't blacks share it? As to mask mandates, my only evidence of a difference by race is lack of media reports on disruptive behavior by blacks, but I sure as hell don't trust the media to report accurately on anything blacks do that is socially disruptive. More generally, I could accept that they don't subscribe as widely to this peculiar strand of American freedom because they were excluded from it for a long time, they don't have that behavioral path dependence.
There may be a racial element to the difference. It may even be worth studying. But it is lunacy to say that the disruptive while people are doing what they do to perform or protect a racial identity.
"Second-hand testimony"? it's a focus group. Do you want Stan Greenberg to bring Marge from Macomb to your house? Odds are she's not with us anymore. Anyhoo:
Stage 1: The Civil War was NOT about slavery!
Stage 2: OK, there was SOME racism among SOME whites in the Deep South. A long time ago!
Stage 3: NORTHERN whites' political views have NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE! Like Stephen Colbert in his Colbert Report days, they "don't see color". They are just all about liberty, freedom and limited government (except for tariffs, farm subsidies, keeping businesses from discriminating against the non-vaccinated, "Backing the Blue" (except the Capitol Hill PD) etc etc"
Stage 4 When this Minnesota lady told John McCain she was afraid that Obama was "an Arab", she was just expressing legitimate concerns she had no reason not to express publicly since she was just operating from within a Lockean individualist value system that most Americans share. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrnRU3ocIH4
"And so the -- what happened in the -- in those groups, and part of which is in the chapter on McComb County, is we raised the race issue, and unbelievable emotion came pouring out. We read a -- I remember reading a statement attributed to Robert Kennedy about the obligations to address this as a Civil Rights issue, and the, you know, people started saying things like, No wonder they shot him. It was a very strong response to it, and it became very clear -- and people were quite willing in this setting to talk in great depth about the sense of grievance on race grounds, and how that was coming to shape their whole view of the Democratic Party and of the role of government" https://www.c-span.org/video/?63783-1/middle-class-dreams
You don't have to be from the Deep South to be a white person who thinks that you are somehow more American and more deserving than non-white (and sometimes non-Christian) people of various sort, not just African-Americans. Stan Greenberg's interviews in Macomb County Michigan from the 1980s are all about that. It's not like support for Trump (even vis-a-vis other Republicans) is only linked to racial attitudes among people living in states that seceded. And of course you see a lot of Confederate flags in places like Idaho and Maine nowadays.
What is the "this" in this second-hand testimony that RFK said should be addressed as a civil rights issue? What does raising "the race issue" mean? This is all too reminiscent of Cramer's study of Wisconsin, which nowhere establishes racism but which, at presentations, she asserts does establish it. When you ask her what page # that's on, her answer is, "Well it's obvious that what these white people think could only be motivated by racism." REP circularity.
In other words, you've got nothing but a circular preexisting narrative that nothing could falsify.
As for second-hand reporting, one can actually quote from focus groups. That would make it first hand.
My point was that one should never trust the researcher's own summary of what focus group participants "meant," as opposed to what they actually said. Greenberg gives us no quotations. Just look at how Cramer misinterpreted what her focus group participants meant. Greenberg is no more trustworthy than Cramer, not because he's lying but because he's a progressive academic prepared, just like you, to find his narrative of racism confirmed by "the data." Some call it motivated reasoning.
The problem with Hakeem and some other folks is that they can't imagine having grown up as white and not having thought about race all the time. The white people protesting mask mandates simply don't think about race as often or the way Hakeem does. It's hard for him and some others to imagine a paradigm where race just isn't the determining factor of everything.
Exactly. Some call it motivated reasoning, but I call it social-scientific narcissism.
Many people get very emotional about abortion and even think it is justified to harm those who provide it. This does not necessarily mean that "abortion is the organizing principle of American politics. Nothing else comes close."
Hakes is back, bros! Hakes is back! Tweeting up a storm. Standing in solidarity, retweeting Grumblefish. Doing the emotional labor of a public-facing scholar.
Are Black people anywhere close to proportionally represented among the anti-mask protestors? If not, why not? Do you think they find masks comfortable or hate "freedom"?
This "peculiar American form of 'freedom;" didn't come out of nowhere. It's always been connected importantly to race. Dr. Johnson- 'How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of N*groes?''
inelegantly put as usual, but he's not really wrong
No he's actually really wrong. It is not whiteness driving this behavior, it is a peculiar American form of "freedom" driving it. Not a single one of the people being disruptive and difficult about mask mandates is doing so because of their race.
HJ's move, here as always, is to *define* the motive for aggressive acts he doesn't like by white people as "whiteness." It doesn't help to understand them at all, but it does help him with his professional grift built on his colleagues guilt.
this just doesn't pass the smell test. the obvious alternative is GOPers/maga are mobilized/activated to protest masks. the mobilizable base of the party is mostly angry white folks.
calling this whiteness is trying to derive the claim, these protests are essential qualities of a particular race. which is dumb and offensive, but also just flat empirically wrong.
the base of the party just so happens to be "angry white folks" and that has nothing to do with race? OK.
Are Black people anywhere close to proportionally represented among the anti-mask protestors? If not, why not? Do you think they find masks comfortable or hate "freedom"?
This "peculiar American form of 'freedom;" didn't come out of nowhere. It's always been connected importantly to race. Dr. Johnson- 'How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of N*groes?''
inelegantly put as usual, but he's not really wrong
No he's actually really wrong. It is not whiteness driving this behavior, it is a peculiar American form of "freedom" driving it. Not a single one of the people being disruptive and difficult about mask mandates is doing so because of their race.
HJ's move, here as always, is to *define* the motive for aggressive acts he doesn't like by white people as "whiteness." It doesn't help to understand them at all, but it does help him with his professional grift built on his colleagues guilt.
this just doesn't pass the smell test. the obvious alternative is GOPers/maga are mobilized/activated to protest masks. the mobilizable base of the party is mostly angry white folks.
calling this whiteness is trying to derive the claim, these protests are essential qualities of a particular race. which is dumb and offensive, but also just flat empirically wrong.
the base of the party just so happens to be "angry white folks" and that has nothing to do with race? OK.
Yes, there are many relevant IVs. If you think "whiteness" is one, then you need to operationalize it and test its explanatory power like a real social scientist.
you can believe a large portion of the GOP is motivated to one degree or another by racial "resentment" or outright prejudice and still not think that it is the driving force behind every single thing instance of their partisan behavior. sheesh.
the base of the party just so happens to be "angry white folks" and that has nothing to do with race? OK.
Are Black people anywhere close to proportionally represented among the anti-mask protestors? If not, why not? Do you think they find masks comfortable or hate "freedom"?
This "peculiar American form of 'freedom;" didn't come out of nowhere. It's always been connected importantly to race. Dr. Johnson- 'How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of N*groes?''
inelegantly put as usual, but he's not really wrong
No he's actually really wrong. It is not whiteness driving this behavior, it is a peculiar American form of "freedom" driving it. Not a single one of the people being disruptive and difficult about mask mandates is doing so because of their race.
HJ's move, here as always, is to *define* the motive for aggressive acts he doesn't like by white people as "whiteness." It doesn't help to understand them at all, but it does help him with his professional grift built on his colleagues guilt.
this just doesn't pass the smell test. the obvious alternative is GOPers/maga are mobilized/activated to protest masks. the mobilizable base of the party is mostly angry white folks.
calling this whiteness is trying to derive the claim, these protests are essential qualities of a particular race. which is dumb and offensive, but also just flat empirically wrong.
the base of the party just so happens to be "angry white folks" and that has nothing to do with race? OK.
Are Black people anywhere close to proportionally represented among the anti-mask protestors? If not, why not? Do you think they find masks comfortable or hate "freedom"?
This "peculiar American form of 'freedom;" didn't come out of nowhere. It's always been connected importantly to race. Dr. Johnson- 'How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of N*groes?''
inelegantly put as usual, but he's not really wrong
No he's actually really wrong. It is not whiteness driving this behavior, it is a peculiar American form of "freedom" driving it. Not a single one of the people being disruptive and difficult about mask mandates is doing so because of their race.
HJ's move, here as always, is to *define* the motive for aggressive acts he doesn't like by white people as "whiteness." It doesn't help to understand them at all, but it does help him with his professional grift built on his colleagues guilt.
this just doesn't pass the smell test. the obvious alternative is GOPers/maga are mobilized/activated to protest masks. the mobilizable base of the party is mostly angry white folks.
calling this whiteness is trying to derive the claim, these protests are essential qualities of a particular race. which is dumb and offensive, but also just flat empirically wrong.
that's not the claim you have to defend, this is: "these protests are essential qualities of a particular race."
angry white GOPers could by angry and white and GOP because of racism, but being angry and GOP is NOT an essential feature of being white.
^Of course he's racist. Hackeem hates wypipo. But his racism is the last acceptable form of it, so he won't pay any price for it. In fact he'll probably come out better when all the self-loathing wypipo progressives publicly support him.
^You guys should lobby the dept chair and deans to get disciplinary proceedings started. Racism can't seriously be acceptable, no matter in what direction. I'm a full prof; if I were to get his T&P file, I would defo give a negative recommendation and raise this as a serious issue; he can be glad I'm in a different subfield. Come on, do something, don't be complicit.
^You guys should lobby the dept chair and deans to get disciplinary proceedings started. Racism can't seriously be acceptable, no matter in what direction. I'm a full prof; if I were to get his T&P file, I would defo give a negative recommendation and raise this as a serious issue; he can be glad I'm in a different subfield. Come on, do something, don't be complicit.
Any Stanford undergreads in here? It's up to you guys to help save the world from this mon/ster!
that's not the claim you have to defend, this is: "these protests are essential qualities of a particular race."
The mask really slipped with this. Usually when CRT people talk about "whiteness" they act they're referring to an ideology, not a race of people. But Hakeem doesn't bother with that. He's just talking about whites, all of them, and their essential qualities.