I'm so confused as to where poorer people of color fit into all of this. This seems to highlight Scott's small social circle if all the members of the "non-Red Tribe" are white yuppie coastal elites.
Also, there is a lot more mingling between white and Black poor people than a typical "coastal elite" would expect who never spent time in the South.
I grew up around racist people who all had friends of the other race. They just consider their friends an exception to their general dislike of the other race.
The thing I heard all the time growing up was "I don't hate black people, I just hate N-words." The idea is that it's not the race that a racist person has a problem with, just the cultural practices (laziness, lack of class, etc.) they associate with people of that race. A member of that race who rises above those associations is welcomed with open arms. Of course, they are oblivious to the idea that associating those cultural practices with a race is the racist part. But it makes it very easy for them to be racist and have friends of the other race without feeling any dissonance.
It cuts both ways too. I also had Black friends growing up that had no problem being friends with me or other white kids but wouldn't hesitate to disparage "crackers" as a whole if they were in a safe enough space to do so without being harmed.
I don't know what groups poor urban people of color end up feeling affinity to.
I was floored by how racially segregated Southern California is when when I moved here in the '00s. I grew up in the Midwest and spent a few years in central Georgia.
> The thing I heard all the time growing up was "I don't hate black people, I just hate N-words." The idea is that it's not the race that a racist person has a problem with, just the cultural practices (laziness, lack of class, etc.) they associate with people of that race.
I saw similar attitudes in all 3 places, but in the Midwest and the South it was whites (and even some blacks) who had these attitudes. In SoCal, I mostly see it from hispanics and asians.
I have heard this exact phrase (well without the euphemism) come out of many people's mouth in the Midwest.
Also, I disagree with the logic that the statement is inherently racist. I understand that everyone in the USA is hypersensitive about race and has been conditioned to automatically scream "racist" at the mere mention of that word, but analyzing the position behind the statement logically: in this context it is being used as a class signal, not a race signal.
I think it's completely uncontroversial to say that usage of the word always has a racial component.
Which statements with racial components are also racist is not a discussion that I believe can be usefully debated on a forum like HN.
Yes, but a default association that those with a certain race are likely to have a certain class is racist.
Is the issue here that English doesn't have a word/concept like "culturism"? If there was such a word, would it be fair to call those people racist when they specifically are saying they don't care about race but cultural practices instead?
1. "I don't hate people because of their race, I hate them because of their culture."
2. Subtextually, "I think people of a certain race are so likely to have a certain culture I hate that I have a word for it."
Arguably, the first point is not racist. The second point, which is not stated but is certainly understood by both speaker and listener, clearly is.
If you didn't grow up in the area, the second point might not be obvious as a dogwhistle, but it's definitely there.
Although the tribes have pretty diverse subtribes. Red has a very poor temporarily embarrassed millionaire quite separate from the actual owners. They still align with some of the same tribal calls and signaling.
> This seems to highlight Scott's small social circle if all the members of the "non-Red Tribe" are white yuppie coastal elites.
This is an uncharitable reading of text. I mean, you may be correct, but it isn't supported by the goal of the essay.
They're told to vote blue or they ain't black