Yep--racism doesn't just pop up out of ground spontaneously. I'm sorry to break that to echt-(neo)liberals who leg hump the essential badness of the flyover morons primarily as a means of hippie-punching self-embellishment. It's also a convenient way of relegating the Democratic failure to the souls of the deplorable as opposed to those who authored that failure. It's also at some level or to some degree partly true: yes, humans aren't billiard balls, so many under economic pressure didn't go racist. No shit: the argument is at the statistical, populational level, not at the level of Individual Souls.
I mean, I get why Hillary and Barack would push that line, why corporate Democrats want to push this discussion into the philosophical-theological region of the soul. Such airy regions are safely distant from actual material causation, which is convenient--nay, necessary! But why anyone else, especially those who bash Trumpers for heeding the ideological/propaganda needs of their Dear Leader or his cohort, would just get into line, despite all kinds of fancy degrees (because of?), is, well, neither surprising nor mysterious. But sucks. Physicians, heal thyselves.
Yeah, so, back to our story: as in all rational studies of human motivation, it's just a tad more complicated than a mutually-exclusive binary, one between two supposed categories not even all that separable ("race" and "economy").
Race and economics shouldn't be more than heuristically separable categories, period--including in Civil War historiography: slavery was both racist and a system of labor in a longstanding economy.
You: "So, which is it????? I can't tweet anything more complicated than 'Homer Bad Man,' and god knows I didn't get my degrees in order to learn how to think on my own. That was for status and future income, you idiot. Any kind of dynamic interaction makes my head hurt and sounds vaguely Marxist, which interferes with my latte-sipping, and since inside of every (neo)liberal there's what's considered a more mature conservative trying to get out, well, what choice do I have?"
Me: [Slams head into desk; links to full paper he knows you won't read, let alone accept or understand.]
Here’s a great documentary on Ferguson’s investment theory of politics which is one of those social-science notions that is both utterly obvious a priori and which also requires a ton of reinforcement to maybe convince the ideologically blinded.
I mean, I get why Hillary and Barack would push that line, why corporate Democrats want to push this discussion into the philosophical-theological region of the soul. Such airy regions are safely distant from actual material causation, which is convenient--nay, necessary! But why anyone else, especially those who bash Trumpers for heeding the ideological/propaganda needs of their Dear Leader or his cohort, would just get into line, despite all kinds of fancy degrees (because of?), is, well, neither surprising nor mysterious. But sucks. Physicians, heal thyselves.
Yeah, so, back to our story: as in all rational studies of human motivation, it's just a tad more complicated than a mutually-exclusive binary, one between two supposed categories not even all that separable ("race" and "economy").
Race and economics shouldn't be more than heuristically separable categories, period--including in Civil War historiography: slavery was both racist and a system of labor in a longstanding economy.
You: "So, which is it????? I can't tweet anything more complicated than 'Homer Bad Man,' and god knows I didn't get my degrees in order to learn how to think on my own. That was for status and future income, you idiot. Any kind of dynamic interaction makes my head hurt and sounds vaguely Marxist, which interferes with my latte-sipping, and since inside of every (neo)liberal there's what's considered a more mature conservative trying to get out, well, what choice do I have?"
Me: [Slams head into desk; links to full paper he knows you won't read, let alone accept or understand.]
Here’s a great documentary on Ferguson’s investment theory of politics which is one of those social-science notions that is both utterly obvious a priori and which also requires a ton of reinforcement to maybe convince the ideologically blinded.