Delusional Nostalgia Is Killing White Men

[Scott Mayers]

This has been a frequent discussion here on mlw, the disillusionment and disentitlement angst of the white male, in an era of increasing rights of women and people of colour, decreasing job opportunities for the working class due to globalization, baby boomers hogging jobs, and whatever else is blamed.

It is killing white working class males ... or rather, they are killing themselves ... with substance abuse.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/how-delusional-nostalgia-killing-white-working-class?akid=13700.264377.Tb-rw-&rd=1&src=newsletter1046232&t=2

But the biggest story is researchers discovery that between 1999 and 2014, the mortality rate for white Americans age 45 to 54 without a college degree soared by 22 percent. ... counter to trends for every other related group. Mortality rates for African Americans and Hispanics continue to fall, as do those of white working-class Americans peers in wealthy nations around the world. Even among American whites, the phenomenon is limited to blue-collar communities. White Americans with at least some college education saw their death rates flatline, while the mortality of those with at least a bachelors degree actually declined.

The usual culpritsheart disease and cancer, among othersare not to blame here. Researchers find this rise in deaths is instead largely attributable to substance abuse and other forms of self-harm. As the Guardian notes, Princeton researchers found that deaths from drug overdoses and alcohol poisoning rose fourfold, suicides by 81 percent, and deaths from liver disease and cirrhosis by 50 percent. For this least-educated group, deaths from all causes rose more than a fifth.

The article discusses why this might be the case:

Lyndon Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." The desperate fear of losing ground to the "other, and politicians successful exploitation of that fear has created a white working-class that increasingly works against itself and eats its own. It votes to send its children to war and against its own pocketbook. It shouts that it wants to Take back our country, and leaves no question as to who it thinks has stolen it. (The irony here is positively rich!)

Edit...

(Republican?) politicians exploiting fears ... convincing working class men to blame women and minority groups ... while they 'pick their pockets' - ie, bosses tell them they can't afford to give them raises because of the women and immigrants or some such nonsense.

Sounds accurate to me.

.

You fall for the same trap that causes the problem, jacee. Your use of statistics to measure the 'white men' as a group as if they are somehow of equivalent status in wealth is grossly ignorant. The 'white men' who DO have problems are the ones who suffer in similar ways to others of any group. And it is of this 'subset' of 'white men' who are complaining. The opposite is true of those 'white men' who ARE more successful as they DO believe in distinction in kind and favor discrimination. This is because they do not suffer the consequences and intrinsically believe in their 'whiteness'. If anything, it would be this subclass who are the ones who are both favored by those like yourself when in truth they are also the very ones who believe and cause the discrimination. They only SACRIFICE the poor 'white' male if only to enhance the very discrimination that gave them their own powers.

That is, the ones who would 'agree' with you ARE the ones who caused any problem in imbalances between peoples. And in the same way, it makes you as guilty because they are feeding your own similar belief to discriminate as you enhance this mentality rather than defeat it when you argue that somehow the 'white man' has earned their disposition. For religious people, this is not a problem as they can simply defer to some 'God' in some afterlife they believe in who'll fix the wrongs. So should an 'innocent' male (or any other disapproved of class based on genetics) be treated badly in life, they impose their faith upon the disenfranchised by willing to sacrifice them.

On the other end of the spectrum, for the non-God religious, they believe in a 'greater cause' for prosperity as if the ideal future itself would 'fix' the wrongs. However, it still sacrifices those who don't have the capacity to be a function of that 'future ideal'.

The extremes of these are all forms of Nationalisms. It is THIS that is the problem. [by 'Nationalism', I'm referring to any belief in some genetic heritage with neglect to contingent reality, which includes those based on sex, for instance.]

I'd like to see the supporters of Nationalistic beliefs truly sacrifice of themselves rather than impose it upon others.

[TimG]

Same question, but say you had to do home renovations and one contractor was from your own ethnic group and the other was an immigrant with an accent from another ethnic group (say an Arab or a Nigerian), which would would you hire?

In situations like this people depend on subtle linguistic cues that convey trust and people who are fluent in English are going to be better at conveying those cues and it cannot be avoided. What it also means is skin colour is not a factor. A black man who speaks perfect English is more likely to get the job than a white guy with a thick Russian accent.

I think it's human nature to have a "fear of the other", and we all need to fight this within ourselves.

The "other" in Canadian society is largely defined by whether someone is fluent in English and speaks with a Canadian accent. Edited December 8, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

Use google. Look up all the lenders who have plead guilty to discriminating against african americans, it shouldn't be hard to find discrimination they face today. If you can truly find nothing, let me know.

We covered this. There is no evidence that these statistical anomalies were a result of race. The banks pleading guilty just means it was cheaper to settle than go to trial and make their case.

This is not the case at all. Even white immigrants got to homestead in canada and the usa. Go outside the cities, you'll find millions of whites living on multi-generational land from homestead days.

Homestead acts did not discriminate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts

Blacks were eligible so you cannot call this a racist policy.

Also, the benefit of 'free land' disappears after a few generations because the value of the land is divided among an increasing number of people. More importantly, as any study of lottery winners show, simply getting a gift does not mean someone has the acumen to build that gift into a long term asset. The latter requires skill and hard work.

Provide evidence that this is true. Show me that racism is fiction. Show me evidence rich originals do not face race based discrimination.

Systematic racism, for the most part, is a tautology. If one believes that racism is everywhere then one will interpret all data as evidence of racism. If one looks at the data without predetermined conclusions one will see other, equally valid, explanations for the differences. What this also means it is it impossible to eliminate systematic racism, as defined by people who see racism everywhere, because no matter what is done they will always find excuses to claim that racism is everywhere.

We can't change the past, we can correct past injustices.

Only by creating new injustices. Two wrongs do not make a right. Harming innocent people today cannot be justified because people with the same skin colour enjoyed disproportionate benefits in the past. Edited December 8, 2015 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Except where is the evidence that "discrimination" is the root cause of the gap today rather than a hang over from the wrongs of the past?

Do you actually understand what the phrase "root cause" means? If current inequality was caused by past discrimination then the root cause of inequality is discrimination. Of course, only a nitwit wouls suggest discrimination doesn't take place today.

A tiny percentage of the population today are affected by such past benefits because of immigration and the dilution of the wealth effect after 3 or 4 generations.

Cite needed. If past policies designed to deny economic opportunity and education to blacks (for example) are no longer relevant, then why is there such a giant gap in social mobility between blacks and whites? And yes I'm aware of the social mobility gap that exists among whites who are born poor, which only serves to undermine your claim further.

No - that is a fiction you invented to rationalize your views. Racism, where it exists, is simply a manifestation of human tribalism and fear of the "other".

In part. It's more complex than that and power and economics have always shaped ideas around race: witness, for example, the mutable notions of what constitutes whiteness.

The way to combat racism is create an environment for people from different backgrounds view each other as being part of the same "tribe". Rants about white privilege and accusations that average white person is an inveterate bigot only serve to exacerbate those diversions.

Not exploring white privilege and unconscious racism serves no purpose but to sooth the feelings of aggrieved white folks.

hell which is not materially different from the abuse heaped on Bush, Clinton or Reagan. Political partisans on both sides vilify the leaders of their opponents and use all kind nasty rhetoric to attack them.

And the precise nature of that nasty rhetoric can speak volumes. But I suppose it doesn't matter to you, someone who probably doesn't see the difference between calling Clinton a cheating horndog, Reagan a senile old fool or Obama a n**ger.

Repeating a false assertion does not make it true. Look at the popular image of a 'white hilly billy/trailer park trash' - if these people were not white such stereotypes would be considered gross racism but I guess people assuming you are stupid and married to your sister is called "white privilege" in your race centered view of the world. Money matters. Poor people are not privileged no matter what their skin colour.

Some poor people are more privileged than others and sometimes that's due to their skin colour. Look, for example, at incarceration rates for poor blacks versus poor whites and explain that.

You can't fix the past. What is done is done. The only thing that can be done is acknowledge the wrongs of the past and establish a social framework to ensure they do not happen in the future. But the anti-white bigotry that in embedded in your arguments simply repeat the mistakes of the past.

Tough to move on when some people can't even acknowledge the wrongs of the past or the existence of similar wrongs in the present.

[-1=e^ipi]

However, let every MLW member ask themselves: if they owned a business and they had 2 hiring candidates with equal qualifications, where one candidate was from their own ethnic group and the other was an immigrant with an accent from another ethnic group, which would would you hire?

The second, because it would make the workforce appear more 'diverse', so would mean that the PC police in the government would be less likely to come and harass my business.

[Black Dog]

The second, because it would make the workforce appear more 'diverse', so would mean that the PC police in the government would be less likely to come and harass my business.

I expect you can provide instances where this has happened, then? Maybe a link to the PC Police department?

[The_Squid]

The second, because it would make the workforce appear more 'diverse', so would mean that the PC police in the government would be less likely to come and harass my business.

Please provide a cite that the government has "PC police" that check up on businesses in this manner.

[Black Dog]

Please provide a cite that the government has "PC police" that check up on businesses in this manner.

Great now I have Cheap Trick in my head.

The PC police

They live inside of my head

The PC police

They come to me in my bed

The PC police

They're coming to arrest me

Oh no

[The_Squid]

Great now I have Cheap Trick in my head.

Maybe that's what 1=#*#&$*e was talking about... perhaps he/she will post a cite to Cheap Trick's website, if they have one!

[-1=e^ipi]

Please provide a cite that the government has "PC police" that check up on businesses in this manner.

Here is one quick example that took 10 seconds to find using google.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/23/french-firms-fine-gender-equality-laws

[The_Squid]

Here is one quick example that took 10 seconds to find using google.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/23/french-firms-fine-gender-equality-laws

You're in France? I didn't know that...

[-1=e^ipi]

You're in France? I didn't know that...

I don't think you realize that the threat of such action alone is enough for companies to make decisions to deal with that potential threat. If it can happen in France, it can happen here, especially with our current federal and provincial governments (well most of the provincial; at least Quebec, Ontario and Alberta).

[The_Squid]

I don't think you realize that the threat of such action alone is enough for companies to make decisions to deal with that potential threat. If it can happen in France, it can happen here, especially with our current federal and provincial governments (well most of the provincial; at least Quebec, Ontario and Alberta).

ummm... that's an extremely weak argument. Lots of things happen in France that don't happen here and vice versa.

So this was pure fiction about the "PC police". Thanks for confirming.

[-1=e^ipi]

ummm... that's an extremely weak argument. Lots of things happen in France that don't happen here and vice versa.

So this was pure fiction about the "PC police". Thanks for confirming.

It's not fiction.

There are PC police in our universities trying to censor everyone.

We just had a new government elected. Our prime minister completely believes all the SJW stuff, has a quota based cabinet and wants to make a quota based senate. Other neoprogressive governments in other countries have punished companies that did not comply with 'diversity'. If I were a company in Canada, I would favour hiring more 'diverse' people to avoid any possible witch hunt.

Edited December 12, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[The_Squid]

The government checking on businesses in the manner you said is pure fiction.

[TimG]

Cite needed. If past policies designed to deny economic opportunity and education to blacks (for example) are no longer relevant, then why is there such a giant gap in social mobility between blacks and whites? And yes I'm aware of the social mobility gap that exists among whites who are born poor, which only serves to undermine your claim further.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2013/08/28-social-mobility-race-opportunity-reeves

Raj Chetty and his colleagues find that “rates of upward mobility are significantly lower in areas with a larger African-American population, such as the South”. Chetty argues that it is not race itself that is the causal factor, since he reports that whites living in the same areas also have lower mobility rates. But the children with narrower life chances in predominantly black areas are, by definition, predominantly black.

...

But research produced by the William T Grant Foundation suggests that, in terms of job search, “black men who have never been incarcerated fare no better in the job market than white men just out of prison”.

...

Even ‘assortative mating’ – the tendency of affluent, educated people to marry affluent, educated people – has a racial gap, with implications for the intergenerational inequalities. According to data from Vida Maralani, 84% of highly-educated white women marry a well-educated man, compared to 49% of highly-educated black women.

Keep in mind that I am not arguing that the aggregate statistics do not show a gap between blacks and others but that the cause is not 'systematic racism in society today'. The link above discusses the complexities of the issues and makes it clear that in the rare cases where discrimination exists it is only one factor among many.

The ‘assortative mating’ is an example of how personal choices have a significant impact.

Personally, I thought this was interesting:

My colleague Isabel Sawhill has adopted a simple, single metric for upward mobility: making it to the middle class by middle age. Almost two in three whites clear this hurdle, compared to just three out of ten blacks:

If we want to get away from blaming everything on white people and talk about what policies would actually help I think Sawhill's metrics would be a good starting point for discussion. Edited December 12, 2015 by TimG

[Scott Mayers]

Comparison of Politics that create degrees of discrimination of race:

Right-wing belief

The individual should have a right to 'own' with more priority.

Problem: the plurality with the largest Nationality of the wealthiest, along with their culture, beliefs, and traditions, prevail. But while those who are wealthier have 'pride' in their own ethnicity/religions of which they credit their worth, the delude other groups into thinking their fortune is about their race/ethnicity/religion.

Left-wing belief:

The group should have a right to 'own' with more priority.

Problem: What is defined as a group? If the whole is taken in respect, they have to also accept the supposed ethnicity/race of those with the largest plurality. So they oppose that or those groups in highest representation of wealth based on ethnicity/race.

Both

The culture of largest plurality(s) in each economic class should 'own' with more priority, whether they be individuals OR groups.

Problem: Both arrogantly presume the cult of majorities in most representation in each economic class should be granted the privilege over the individual who lacks any belief in ethnic/religious definitions. For the left, the shunned are those of the genetic race represented by the right; for the right, the shunned are any other groups or individuals not belonging to their own genetic race nor wealth class. Both exclude the natural mixes between people who either oppose their race by appearance or to their willingness to abide by the stereotype to convene to the assumption of the majority of those racial classes.

Since the white male is most vilified by the non-white/non-male minorities by the left AND are vilified by the white who judge those white males who are poor as equally worthless as their non-white/non-any-sex minorities, the single white male who is poor is more often the distinct genetic marker who gets discriminated by everyone. To the minorities in the same impoverished environment, they interpret the white among them as naturally privileged as if they have a wealthy relative who would save them no matter what; To the majority (or minority) of the wealthy, they only pity the poor regardless of where they are from, which includes the white male who is also poor too.

Note that I do NOT think that the white male is the ONLY target. Any non-fitting individuals both in poverty and not associated with what society thinks they should belong to by those who associate with cultural/genetic identities are equally discriminated against. As a white male, I would NOT believe in associating in a group of "white males" to make a stand because it is just what all the other prejudiced society expects us to do because of their own nationalistic errant beliefs. Yet, we are being more neglected by what we are not privileged to that even minorities in similar impoverished environments get simply for having a positive genetic component that is equally accepted by their opposing groups.

We are stereotyped as wealthy by equals in poverty, and worthless or lazy by those dominating in the culture of the same appearance but who are actually wealthy. Its a lose/lose for many. Its the Nationalists of both extremes that are creating the problems. They both agree to being discriminate against one or more races yet both penalize the weakest in their 'own' race for not colluding as a Nationality. The wealthy of the dominant cultures WIN as they get the dominant cultures of the poor to act equally racist by buying their political acceptance at least in some partial degree. But they don't actually 'sacrifice' anything. The sacrifice is to those even more minor minorities who get excluded because they are not of any group.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Scott Mayers