« Logic, Media, Incentives, And Me | Main | When Insurers Go Dishonest »
July 19, 2007
Hoisted!
From the comments to my post on the racial breakdown of the poor:
There is probably something to be said for visible poverty, however. I imagine african americans are a higher percentage of the urban poor: the group that newspaper columnists and other movers and shakers tend to see.
Posted by: mikem | Jul 19, 2007 3:03:18 PM
As someone noted on another thread, a quick trip through the hills of Arkansas would cure anyone of the delusion that poverty is confined to the African American community.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jul 19, 2007 3:09:05 PM
Well put. Part of why poverty became synonymous with "African-America" was that, in the eyes of those who wrote about these things, it was largely confined to the black, and in some cases, Hispanic, community. It's worth often repeating that the degree to which our national discourse is directed and controlled by a few classes of professionals living in one of three mega-cities leads to major blind spots and distortions of fact.
July 19, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Rural Florida is another example of areas where extreme poverty is commonplace and the faces are overwhelmingly white. There are towns in North Florida, for example, in which you can only find one central general store/bar/gathering spot--one that has no refrigeration, no air conditioning, and sometimes no electricity, period. Beer is sold from a cooler full of ice (from a nearby town), and if you're bored, you can put your quarter on the edge of the pool table and wait your turn.
You city folk are funny. Meanwhile, both mikem and WB speak the truth.
Posted by: litbrit | Jul 19, 2007 4:37:01 PM
Don't forget the conflation of poverty with the southern strategy and the tax cut brigade. Remember? The poor are supposed to be too lazy to work, living off your tax dollars (welfare queens), and just in time for the vote from the southern states - 'not white'.
Posted by: Casey | Jul 19, 2007 4:50:42 PM
Apropos your point, it's only important to remember that the sub-distinction of *urban* poverty does seem to most affect the black and Hispanic communities. And this, of course, is what catches mainstream white voters' attention. Population density is key here.
Posted by: Daniel Munz | Jul 19, 2007 5:05:33 PM
Washington, New York, and ... Atlanta? Los Angeles? Boston? Chicago? Which is the third city?
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Jul 19, 2007 5:09:24 PM
Alexandria.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 19, 2007 5:34:16 PM
It's worth often repeating that the degree to which our national discourse is directed and controlled by a few classes of professionals living in one of three mega-cities leads to major blind spots and distortions of fact.
Indeed; this is what many folks in "flyover country" have been complaining about for years. And this is why the "liberal media" frame is so easily exploited. A lot of folks don't have any idea of what a truly "liberal" media would look like; all they know is that the one they have has very little to do with they see around them.
Posted by: idlemind | Jul 19, 2007 5:35:26 PM
Good point Ezra.
Posted by: Korha | Jul 19, 2007 5:35:27 PM
I do have to wonder how much of race/poverty links has to do with generational poverty. Who is more likely to, as did Edwards' father, climb right into the middle class later on in life? Who isn't? I'm admittedly ignorant on this and I imagine there have to have been some studies on which races among the poor show the most upward mobility. That's what most people have a sense of, anyway, when they talk about "poverty" -- no one thinks your average poor college student is suffering poverty, but the person living either in the inner-city slum or the in-the-middle-of-nowhere trailer who has far far less chance of moving up as they age does fit that bill.
Posted by: amanda w | Jul 19, 2007 5:51:21 PM
The republican creation of "welfare queens" is no different than their bogus Iraq/Al Qaeda connection. Similarly, we need to untangle poverty and race in order to effectively deal with each one. I am glad John Edwards is doing his part.
Posted by: jncam | Jul 19, 2007 5:51:58 PM
This is spoken as someone who has grown up poor and white, btw. I can kind of see Ezra's point, but I'd want to see more work on this subject before I come to any sort of even tentative conclusion.
Posted by: amanda w | Jul 19, 2007 5:52:22 PM
To be fair - the race angle worked on more than one level didn't it? For some it created a more compelling case for reform - especially since the government's racist policies, practices and past history were uniquely instrumental in creating the conditions of American black poverty.
Are American conservatives generally against government anti-poverty measures primarily as a way of oppressing black Americans? Doesn't your point about the way the media portrays poverty support my point and undermine the sinister conflation theory as the ultimate culprit?
Posted by: slickdpdx | Jul 19, 2007 6:26:27 PM
Indeed; this is what many folks in "flyover country" have been complaining about for years. And this is why the "liberal media" frame is so easily exploited. A lot of folks don't have any idea of what a truly "liberal" media would look like; all they know is that the one they have has very little to do with they see around them. - idlemind
Bingo. Most people don't trust teh liberalz 'cause all they know from liberals are the effete, elite wankers in the media who are marketed as liberals and all they know from Democrats are the corrupt machine politicians in nearby big cities.
The Democrats would do well to clean house. But what do we do about the media misrepresenting themselves (and being misrepresented by others with a political agenda) as we?
Posted by: DAS | Jul 19, 2007 6:29:10 PM
This is just silly. There are places with poor white people, but there sure aren't very many places (if any) where the white people are poorer than the black people.
Nor, considering that white people are the majority, it should come as no surprise that they are also a majority of the poor people too. But this is a type of statistical swindle that involves switching the bases, to confuse or conceal the fact that the per centage of poor blacks is higher than the per centage of poor whites.
What is especially bold about this basically whitewashing technique is that here the straw man supposedly being challenged or de-bunked is not even described to us. The assumption is apparently that a predominantly white readership will collectively nod and say "Good point" (as indeed they have) without ever asking exactly what the point is supposed to be.
Furthermore, as anyone who has ever actually been poor knows, most programs meant to help poor blacks also help poor whites because- and this is the weird amazing but true part- poor white people live in the same places as poor black people. A school lunch program for a poor school with lots of black kids also serves poor white kids.
How can this be? you say. Well, it gets back to the original switcheroo- yes, the black kids are a majority at the school, but because the base for white people is so much larger, there are plenty of poor white people to go around.
Don't get me started.
Posted by: serial catowner | Jul 19, 2007 6:38:47 PM
To follow up on my point: Isn't there a similar phenomenon in death penalty coverage? That is, the plight of black Americans is thought to be more compelling for reasons of American racism which leads to highlighting death row cases where the prisoner is black? The coverage isn't meant to conflate murderers with black Americans.
Posted by: slickdpdx | Jul 19, 2007 7:05:55 PM
Arkansas, West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, parts of Tennessee and Virginia and North Carolina.
Appalachian (and Ouachita) poverty is still real.
Posted by: Mudge | Jul 19, 2007 7:22:57 PM
'...where the white people are poorer than the black
people.'
I submit Baldwin Hills and Ladera Heights.
Maybe Cleveland Heights, Cambria Heights or St. Albans, Mitchellville, parts of Prince George's County, Sweet Auburn.
Posted by: that's rich | Jul 19, 2007 7:34:06 PM
I submit Baldwin Hills and Ladera Heights.
Maybe Cleveland Heights, Cambria Heights or St. Albans, Mitchellville, parts of Prince George's County, Sweet Auburn.
What portion of the population would you say this accounts for?
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 19, 2007 7:53:31 PM
You don't have to go to Arkansas, you can come to Levittown, PA, where I was yesterday for about two hours outside the public assistance office. Nearly everyone being served was white. I didn't count but I would guess that I saw only about six African American people out of about 100 clients.
Posted by: eRobin | Jul 19, 2007 8:43:04 PM
I submit Baldwin Hills and Ladera Heights. Maybe Cleveland Heights, Cambria Heights or St. Albans, Mitchellville, parts of Prince George's County, Sweet Auburn.
I don't know about these other places but Sweet Auburn? What in the world are you talking about?
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jul 20, 2007 12:55:46 AM
Cleveland Heights? Seriously? How that got highlighted apart from, say, all the rest of Cleveland and the surrounding segregated burbs (Lyndhurst, Pepper Pike, Bay Village) is beyond me.
Posted by: Shaft | Jul 20, 2007 8:34:41 AM
I don't know about the other cities but Cleveland Heights shows up in this 1996 Ebony article which stated there were 16 communities where the black median household income was higher than the white median household income.
http://calbears.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_n4_v51/ai_17928187
Posted by: Cleveland Brown | Jul 20, 2007 9:00:54 PM
I actually live in Cleveland Heights, and my guess would be that those numbers are distorted by the populations of (largely white and Asian) medical and law students in the area, but who knows?
Posted by: Steve | Jul 21, 2007 12:20:43 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
