Blaming Blacks
Many of you out there share my disappointment in California's approval of Proposition 8. However, over the last week I've heard too many voices, even those rising from prominant gay communities like the Castro district, that have been far too quick to blame black voters for the proposition's passage. The evidence being offered here, we are told, comes from exit polls. How solid is this data? As it turns out, not very.
Though reported here in an LA Times blog, as being from the AP, and here at CNN, this data all comes from one source: Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International. In case you're too lazy to click that link, allow me to make it plain:
Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International will again conduct all exit polling in 2008 for the National Election Pool, comprised of ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC and the Associated Press.
Though I couldn't find a similar statement from CNN, the AP confirms this in black and white. You may remember how well this organization did with the exit polls in 2004, though I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide whether this was the result of poor polling methodology or poor election practices.
The general veracity of exit polls aside, how good was this one (since that's all we've got to go on here)? I'll let Edward Champion from Reluctant Habits take this one:
Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International were the team behind the 2004 polling botch, and this dynamic duo also spearheaded this week's California exit polling. The hard data is not yet available at the Edison/Mitofsky site. But the Associated Press has reported that 2,240 California voters (of these, 765 were absentees interviewed by landline telephone), interviewed in 30 precincts, represented the total number of people that Edison/Mitofsky interviewed. Which means that some percentage of these voters were African-American. Let's give Edison/Mitofsky 50%. That leaves us with a mere 1,120 voters.
A quick jaunt to the California Secretary of State's website reveals that there are 25,423 precincts in California and that 10.5 million people turned out on Tuesday. In other words, Edison/Mitofsky is making a major claim based on 0.11% (a little more than one-tenth of 1%) of the total precincts, and a sample of voters smaller than a crab louse dancing in a thorny thatch of hair. Is this really large enough?
Of course, this would be a pretty radical over-sampling of African-Americans. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, African-Americans make up a mere 6% of likely voters. So, even if black voters had turned out at 100% and voted for Prop. 8 at 100%, the maximum effect they could have had would be minimal.
One more thing: The last polls the week before the election that published race information showed the black vote split down the middle on Prop. 8. SurveyUSA even shows a trend towards the "No" vote.
So, in summary: The now oft-repeated narrative about a once oppressed minority group rising to the highest office in the land only to become oppressors themselves is a whole lot of bullshit. It's based on a single dodgy exit poll, which doesn't come close to agreeing with pre-election data, by an organization with a tenuous record for accuracy. AND: Even if they got it right, we're talking about 6% of all likely voters among this particular ethnic group at best.
As such, I will say to Sullivan and others who were quick to jump on this narrative: Knock it off. You're better than this.
Finally, there is one thing that we can draw from this data with a much higher degree of certainty. You know who really voted for Prop. 8 in a big way? The elderly and the religious. Overwhelmingly. Why people aren't talking about this, I do not know. Maybe it's because it's all an old story: The seat of bigotry is occupied primarily by old people with old ideas.
I'll leave you with this clip of the always entertaining Dan Savage, who appeared on Tuesday Night's Colbert Report.
---
Cross-posted @ dagblog.com, where we usually get it right the first time!
We have a culture that complusively needs to blame somebody, anybody when things do not turn out the way we expect. (Even with Bush/Gore 2000, we don't want to blame ourselves for not getting a few more people out to vote -- not necessarily in Florida, but one of the other battleground states which could have made the difference.)
With Prop 8, Californians were complacent. Having won in the courts, opponents of Prop 8 were unprepared for the onslaught of lies, damn lies and statistics about gays, the gay "lifestyle" and the mythology spread by anti-gay activists.
Blame somebody? How about all those black folks who turned out to support Barack? Surely they would see this as another "civil rights" issue, wouldn't they? Nevermind that when blaming all black voters you overlook those who are gay or lesbian, and parents and siblings of those who are gay or lesbian, or those who just plain saw Prop 8 as an overreach of the right-wing.
When the dust settles, I am sure a very quiet apology will be offered to California's black voters, because the facts will show they were not to blame for Prop 8's passage.
November 13, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: Bush/Gore 2000, Nader still gets scapegoated for supposedly costing Gore FL. Never mind that Gore failed to carry either Tennessee or Arkansas, either of which would have put him over the top and both of which were carried by Clinton/Gore in '92 and '96.
I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of complacency. Maybe people needed this as a wake-up to realize that they may have to fight a bit for this.
Dan Savage makes the same point you make here in the clip I posted. Are there conservative, religious voters who are black? Sure. But there are also moderates, liberals and, yes, homosexual black voters as well.
I hope that it's a loud apology and that it comes soon. I also hope that some of the more prominent homosexuals who have parroted this nonsense make it a point to put it to bed publicly. It does this cause no good to wallow in such divisive rhetoric.
November 13, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: Gore/Bush 2000 - I've always felt that if you can't win your home state you SHOULDN'T be elected anyway! If those who supposedly know you best don't vote for you why should the rest of us?
As for Prop 8: yeah, I too thought the veracity of exit polling had been thoroughly debunked already!
November 14, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE: Gore/Bush 2000 - I've always felt that if you can't win your home state you SHOULDN'T be elected anyway! If those who supposedly know you best don't vote for you why should the rest of us?
_____
Where's your evidence for that conclusion? It's my view that we should elect the craziest among us to the highest offices (by debree of lunacy) so better to be able to keep our eye on them.
And, of course, offices as far away from us as possible so we'll be safe when they go crazy.
Thus, as consequence, we keep nearest those who are sane. If my state didn't "elect-away" a candidate from my state, then it's because we love the candidate too much to let him go.
November 14, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most recommended. If I may also refer readers to this Kos library which argues against the reliability of the exit poll findings.
November 13, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting this DF. This was one of those talking head tag lines that seemed too pat to me on an intuitive level. It sounded too much like manufactured news: The former oppressed become the agents of intolerance in the process of helping to elect the first African American President.
November 13, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we remove the context of blame and still have the discussion? Because it is an important one. Barack Obama did when he said "We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them" at Ebenezer Baptist Church.
Prop 8 would have passed regardless, absolutely. But there is a lot of discomfort with gays and gay rights in the African American community, much of it founded in religion/moral beliefs. People who have experienced bigotry and discrimination should be more able to confront it in all its forms rather than playing the Opression Olympics. We need to have to have an open and honest conversation so that African Americans (and others) can stop seeing this as a moral or social perspective, but from a civil rights one.
November 13, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Ebenezer speech was great, and timely. Love your comment.
November 13, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's nice, but you can stop sucking up now. Gimme my $10!
November 13, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only can we have the discussion, but we will and must.
What I don't understand is the reason for focusing on any ethnic community at all when it comes to this discussion. As I've pointed out elsewhere, why not Hispanics? They're a larger group in California and predominantly Catholic. Of course, some of the pundit class went ahead and said that it was the fault of blacks and Hispanics.
But this gets us no closer to the issue at hand: We're dealing with religious intolerance, plain and simple. This is not a phenomenon which is peculiar to any particular ethnicity in our culture. Can we have that discussion?
November 13, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
No seriously I get it DF. I *totally* agree with you. African Americans are not the only folks that should be having this conversation. Polls aren't everything, but look at the numbers even on civil unions:
Cons Rep & Evangelicals opposed civil unions 69%
Black voters opposed civil unions 53%
Protestants opposed civil unions 51%
Moderate/Liberal Republicans opposed civil unions 42%
White voters opposed civil unions 39%
Catholics opposed civil unions 31%
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/868/gay-marriage
There's a significant gap there. Religious intolerance absolutely plays a part, but it goes beyond that. Culture plays a role too. And I think it is especially up to socially progressive African American voters to raise the issue and get it out in the open.
November 14, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You get it, but you also refute DF's contention.
There are identifiable groups that vote against gay rights and groups that vote for. Blacks voted against by a small majority, and the timing is fortuitous to push them on this - "we had your back on getting Obama to the White House, now how about lending a hand in shifting black voters to 70-30 in favor of gay rights?" There's no big leverage to cause a switch in the Hispanic community at this point, but if the black community will be assuming more and more upper level power (which is still questionable - I'm still not sure what Obama will do in that regard), they have the responsibility of taking on more and more progressive values and responsibility for other communities.
November 14, 2008 4:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"We had your back on Obama?"
GTFOH
So Gays voting for Obama was a favor to Black Americans? You do know less Gays and Lesbians supported Obama than did Kerry right?
"Black community assuming more upper level power"??
Are you insane? It isn't the "Black Community" assuming more upper level positions, it is some talented qualified black PERSONS finally being able to serve in higher public office due to the influence of racism becoming diminished in some areas. The "Black Community" has not risen to power. You sound like a jackass. All Blacks are not progressive beyond their own self-interest just like gays or hispanics or asians. All blacks who are in positions of political power are not there due to the progressive movement either.
To categorize Obama's victory as all blacks moving up is total fuckery. His being elected has changed the disparity in unemployment, criminal justice, wages, healthcare, poverty, or anything else except the disparity in racial background of Presidents. Will it open some doors? Hopefully.
People voted for Obama because it served their own interests, otherwise they are idiots.
November 14, 2008 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the gay community didn't vote for Obama because he was black ... they voted for him because he was a democrat. That said, Obama made clear that he thinks homophobia within the black community needs to be addressed. But the larger issue is that people who have felt discrimination should be more willing to speak out against it when it happens to others. Think of how the Jewish community played a role in the fight against segregation and for civil rights. When you limit your fight against bigotry to only the ones that affects you, that's identity politics. When you are doing it on a broader social level to make sure all Americans have equal rights, that's progressive.
November 14, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "we" I referred to was "we Democrats". Since I'm not gay, I wouldn't use it self-referentially.
November 14, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"We" Democrats are so diverse. We are not like the homogenous Republicans. Blacks and Hispanics are more socially conservative than most Dems. We've got pro-lifers that vehemently disagree witht he party platform. And I hope the Democratic party elected Obama not because he was black or to advance black interests (I honestly don't see a lot of focus on that from Obama's administration since he ran such a post-racial campaign). I think the you owe us or payback focus is not going to work since there are plenty of folks besides African Americans in the Democratic party that also oppose gay marriage.
But we should be talking about it in the context of respect and understanding for other groups within the democratic coalition. I may be pro-life personally, but I recognize that my moral choice should not be forced on everyone by law. Others may have moral concerns about homosexuality, but how does it impact your life to allow two people who love each other of the same sex to get married?
Okay really signing off now.
November 14, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
November 14, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not speaking of any big "you owe us", I'm just saying it's a good time to stress a bit greater responsibilities that go with greater power. We worked as a party and elected a lot of people, not just 1 black at the head of the ticket, so there's lots of reason for lots of people to be happy. But one group got a bit screwed, so being fair inclusive people it'd be nice to see what we can do to correct that.
November 14, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And for DJ, I think it's a somewhat natural transition from Identity to Progressive, something akin to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs or Herzberg's Hygienic Factors and Motivators. It's hard for most people to be expansive when their own needs aren't reasonably taken care of.
November 14, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Des, I think you hit the nail on the head with this. I'd comment further, but I'm moving offices no access to computer(down the hall, not out of the building which is probably the next step if I don't get back to work) :)
November 14, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
But the larger issue is that people who have felt discrimination should be more willing to speak out against it when it happens to others.
I think this is circular logic. Essentially, it assumes (albeit, correctly imo) that gay marriage is a civil right, and then argues that people (specifically blacks) should support gay marriage because it is a civil right.
If this line of reasoning were valid, then blacks would be required to support any group that claims unjust discrimination. Suppose wife-beaters organized and claimed "we're discriminated against! Guarantee our civil rights!" Nobody would owe automatic allegiance to their claims, even if there were real discrimination --- it might be justified.
In contrast, gays deserve a right to marriage, but the argument must be based on more than a claim of (unjust) discrimination. Homophobia is wrong, but blacks deserve no more opprobrium for their homophobia than anybody else. (I.e., equality means equal right to be a bigot.)
November 14, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alright, slide the adjective "unjust" in front of discrimination and I think it works out just fine.
November 14, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it doesn't help at all.
Look, "blackness" and "gayness" are not obvious analogues, and you cannot assume that they are when arguing for support of gay rights. For just one point, it is self-evident that one is born black. Unfortunately, it is contentious to claim that one is born gay.
Many people are arguing, essentially, "blacks should support gay rights because I've concluded that discrimination against gays is morally equivalent to discrimination against blacks." It's like saying, "you'd think blacks would support gay rights because it's the right thing to do." It's not a valid argument (even if true). It presumes its own conclusion.
November 14, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would think that blacks would try to understand the injustices go through based on the trials they experience, given the caveat of Maslow's hierarchy above. It wasn't long ago that being born black was considered an inferior state, so I could argue exactly as you do that it would be wrong to ask for equal rights for inferiors. Fortunately I think we made it past that mental hurdle.
November 14, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
...injustices [others] go through....
November 14, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question under debate is precisely, "is it an injustice to keep gays from marrying?"
You are arguing, "blacks should answer, 'yes, it is an injustice,' because it is an injustice." That is circular reasoning and logical nonsense. Tacking on, "and blacks should be sympathetic to other victims of injustice" does nothing to save the argument. Blacks (or anyone) should only be sympathetic to "victims of injustice" if there are, in fact, victims of injustice. But that is the whole question!
Perhaps we see a lot of similarity in the discrimination against African Americans and against Homosexuality --- but that does not matter. Others see no similarity at all. This largely restates the argument we're trying to win. It's meaningless to make arguments based on assumptions that we're right.
November 14, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The idea that one is born gay is "contentious" only in the sense that evolution is contentious or the causes of global warming are contentious. In short, to qualify this as "contentious" you have to ignore completely the emerging scientific evidence on the biological nature of sexual orientation.
Try this little thought experiment: Think back and identify the precise moment at which you "decided" to be straight. Identify the criteria you used in making that "choice." Once you do that, then change your sexual orientation for, say, a month, simply by making a different "decision." Then come back to me and report on how it was.
And yeah, I'm being really snarky because your point is so offensive to gay people and demonstrates such an ignorance of our being and our issues that it's all I can do to avoid four-letter words.
November 14, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry that you are offended, but why are you trying to convince me that homosexuality is innate? I absolutely agree. Never did I say otherwise. Never did I imply otherwise. Quite the opposite.
My point is that homophobia by blacks is neither better nor worse than homophobia on the part of anyone else. This is actually neutral on the morality of homosexuality and homophobia. Is making a neutral comment what is offensive?
Prop 8 is an utter travesty. It should never have gotten enough signatures to get on the ballot, much less gotten enough votes to pass. The sooner it is reversed the better. Likewise with the other anti-gay ballot initiatives across the US.
My worry is that grief over Prop 8 will turn into inter-group resentment. That would be unhelpful, unhealthy, and unfair. But there is no doubt that grief is in order.
November 14, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Outstanding post TM.
Well said!!
November 14, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
My contention is clearly that the statistical argument being made all over the MSM, that the black vote turnout (which was not statistically different than usual in CA) somehow caused the ascendancy of Prop. 8, is mathematical nonsense for anyone who actually cares about the plain facts.
I also contend that the source of support for Prop. 8 is religiously motivated bigotry, which is not unique to any particular ethnic group, black or otherwise. Did you happen to hear about what went on at Sacramento's American River College? I guess we could talk about what bigots the orthodox Slavs are as well, but once again I ask: Does this really get us any closer to the real issue? We can keep identifying minority ethnic groups that tend to favor Prop. 8 by statistically insignificant margins until we're blue in the face.
If people, Obama or otherwise, want to have these discussions within their communities, whether it's their religious or ethnic or physical community, that's fine by me.
So, how exactly is my contention being refuted here? I think Dijamo and I fundamentally agree on points.
November 14, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to quibble a bit with the stats, I don't see the margin of error on Pew's numbers here. If it's about 3%, then we could very well have a dead split. That would be consistent with other polls like Field, SUSA and PPIC. This also isn't radically different from California's other ethnic groups. On the whole, as the vote showed, Californians don't support gay marriage my a small margin. As a side note, this is one of those issues that depends greatly on how the question is asked. Polls also show that Californians, and most Americans, support some kind of legally equivalent civil union (sort of like how Americans support government guaranteed healthcare, but don't support government mandated healthcare).
Even so, your point about culture playing a role is totally valid. I have no problem with anyone having this discussion within any community however aligned. What I do have a problem with is the kind of narrative, based on objectively bogus numbers, that Colbert mocked last night.
November 14, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. The president elect doesn't need no stinking exit polls to know that this is a problem in certain Afro-American religious communities. It doesn't get anyone anywhere to scream racist when it's about a subculture that's race-related. I am hoping that one thing Obama's presidency will eventually help do is allow us to talk about these subcultures related to the races without people screaming racist back and forth when we do so, to separate skin color racism from cultural prejudices.
November 14, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I take issue with your phrase 'subculture that is race-related'
The subculture here if we want to call it that is religion. Religion is not race-related. It is faith related. In short, as the surveys listed above showed...numerous religious denominations voted for passage of Prop.
It is wrong to characterize this as race-related in any sense.
November 14, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you can disentangle morality and civil rights. What civil rights someone is willing to support typically depends on their moral perspective.
November 14, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. Honestly, I have no problem with gay marriage or with two friends who aren't gay getting "married" to enjoy the tax break or empmloyment benefits. I may reconsider that stance in light of the racist bullshit on display. I have been totally disgusted by the attempts to blame one of the smallest minorities in California for the passage of Prop8 despite the fact that Hispanics and Whites passed this bill. More Hispanics voted for Prop 8 than there are Black people in California. Same goes for Whites. In addition to that, I get to hear that not being able to marry is equivalent to slavery, Jim Crow and the plight of African Americans,that the gays and lesbians killed in the Holocaust(or every one for that matter) exceeded or was somehow worse than the 60+ million Africans killed in during the TransAtlantic Slave Trade. These remarks belittling the struggles of African Americans all coming from the Gay and Lesbian/Progressive community. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
That leaves out all the overtly racist acts undertaken by protesters in LA since Prop 8's passage.
Where the hell is the Gay and Lesbian community's leadership in all this? I've read a few statements from 2 leaders denouncing the racial attacks but little else. Why not take this opportunity to really reach out to the black community and put this bullshit to rest? The fact is that there truly is LITTLE solidarity on the ground when so called progressives are pushing their respective issues. I didn't see the Gay and Lesbian community out in force during the massive immigration protests but maybe that's just the video that I saw. I didn't see an overwhelming level of black support their either, but I saw Sharpton etc and depending on your area of the country you could see more of a presence - NY, Miami. I didn't see any gays or latinos in Jena, Louisiana marching with blacks. When it comes to solidarity amongst these groups I think it really is mostly lip service. If people really want to bridge the gaps between these groups it can be done but I don't see any real effort toward that end.
November 14, 2008 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
TM you are ON IT!!
November 14, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a few cites to support the #'s:
The vast profits from the slave trade to the Americas became a major element in the British economy and the West Indian trade in general. It has been estimated that the British slave trade alone shipped 2 million slaves from Africa to the West Indies between 1680 and 1786. The number of slaves shipped to the Americas in 1790 alone may have exceeded 70,000. According to another estimate, during the nearly 400 years of the slave trade, a total of 15 million Africans were sold into slavery and some 40 million more lost their lives in transit.
http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Chattel+slaves
In terms of absolute numbers, the lowest possible (and only barely possible at that) death toll we can put on the trans-Atlantic slave trade is 6 million. If we assume the absolute worst, a death toll as high as 60 million is at the very edge of possibility; however, the likeliest number of deaths would fall somewhere from 15 to 20 million.....If 5 million slaves were shipped in the 18th Century (the busiest century, see Hugh Thomas, above), then the 18th Century death toll could be around 8.1 million.
http://www.amistadamerica.org/content/view/1877/26/
.....
November 14, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting the numbers. Their have been different estimations of the years. Regardless of how many it was, so called "progressives" shouldn't be discussing who was oppressed worse or attempting to increase or diminish the perception of acts of oppression by being dishonest.
November 14, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Was it you or someone else who dismissed gay deaths in concentration camps because it wasn't as many as black death in slave transport? I didn't start off quoting numbers until I got the 60 million thrown at me.
November 14, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, had to dig to find our previous thread, so perhaps folks will understand what started this.
Prop 8: Gay is the New Black?
Where TM gets into:
TM: Bullshit. Like others before you, you were attempting to paint the plight of homosexuals in the same light as African Americans. Why aren't Gays the new jews? I understand the need for equality but please refrain from this type of bullshit. It does nothing for Black-Gay relations and understanding and in case you didn't check exit polls, that area needs work. Call me when they have gay and lesbians picking cotton.
Des: Call me when you have blacks gassed at Auschwitz. Gays? Check. Gypsies? Check. Jews? Check.
TM: Call me 60-100 million jews die in the slave trade.
Des: Call me when you get realistic numbers. In any case, good to see it's just a matter of quantity. 50,000 murders can't compare to millions, so just forget it, eh?
Weird stuff. PS, TM - likely of those folks picking cotton and dying in the slave trade some 10% (give or take a few) were gays and lesbians. So maybe this either-or attitude ain't quite prevailing.
November 14, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, had to dig to find our previous thread, so perhaps folks will understand what started this.
Prop 8: Gay is the New Black?
Where TM gets into:
TM: Bullshit. Like others before you, you were attempting to paint the plight of homosexuals in the same light as African Americans. Why aren't Gays the new jews? I understand the need for equality but please refrain from this type of bullshit. It does nothing for Black-Gay relations and understanding and in case you didn't check exit polls, that area needs work. Call me when they have gay and lesbians picking cotton.
Des: Call me when you have blacks gassed at Auschwitz. Gays? Check. Gypsies? Check. Jews? Check.
TM: Call me 60-100 million jews die in the slave trade.
Des: Call me when you get realistic numbers. In any case, good to see it's just a matter of quantity. 50,000 murders can't compare to millions, so just forget it, eh?
Weird stuff. PS, TM - likely of those folks picking cotton and dying in the slave trade some 10% (give or take a few) were gays and lesbians. So maybe this either-or attitude ain't quite prevailing.
November 14, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Posting is acting strange, but basically TM started this weirdness in another post with "call me when they have gays and lesbians picking cotton", which then escalated to "call me when 60-100 million jews die in the slave trade".
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/faberocity/2008/11/gay-is-the-new-black.php
So I guess his point is that no one will ever be able to call him. Odd game.
November 14, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
My impression is that a fair number of non-blacks have been quite active for black causes and policies that help blacks over the years. Are you saying that each and every oppressed group has to march with blacks before blacks will think of helping them out? That's a pretty self-centered attitude.
As for your "historical" data, you'd do better without relying on bullshit figures. Dig this:
"Twelve million black Africans were shipped to the Americas from the 16th to the 19th centuries.[14][15] Of these, an estimated 645,000 (5.4% of the total) were brought to what is now the United States. The overwhelming majority were shipped to Brazil[16] The slave population in the United States had grown to four million by the 1860 Census."
So you're going to contend that 5 times as many Africans died in transit as arrived in the New World? Back to history class, come back when you get a C or better. You're obviously relying on stupid "more of us died than them" arguments and then puffing up the numbers to ridiculous heights. Sick practice, dude, quite sick.
November 14, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
UM, I think you are relying on the numbers who arrived on our shores rather than those who left the coast of Africa.
TM is referring to the intial #'s shipped not those who arrived.
November 14, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a good source, The Atlantic Slave Trade by Herbert Klein, with a mortality chart on slave trade mortality. (Page through the chapter, quite a lot of information)
Total average mortality for the Middle Passage is roughly 13% with the early centuries much worse than later centuries, meaning at the start up to 30% mortality, which would likely include ships lost. Other deaths were associated with capture, holding at the coast and on landing during quarantine, when another 5% could die. So overall that would place mortality roughly at 20%, not the 83% presented above.
Another source I found claims 1-2 million over the centuries. But what these sources make clear is that the cost of slaves dying in transit was significant and something they certainly tried to avoid while still transporting as many as possible (later ships carried much more fresh water, for example).
November 14, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm saying that if 5 died for every one that arrived, you've got a really screwed up operation, and in general shipping during those centuries was very expensive, so slavery simply couldn't have sustained itself that way. Sorry to break it down to economics.
November 14, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"My impression is that a fair number of non-blacks have been quite active for black causes and policies that help blacks over the years."
Please quote where I have denied that. You know I did not say or infer that.
"Are you saying that each and every oppressed group has to march with blacks before blacks will think of helping them out? That's a pretty self-centered attitude."
Again that isn't something I said. But if you want to show solidarity and earn the respect of people you claim are allies you have to do more than talk about it. Did I only mention blacks? Or is that your only focus? Should I sprinkle some insinuations in here about your remarks?
"As for your "historical" data, you'd do better without relying on bullshit figures. Dig this:
"Twelve million black Africans were shipped to the Americas from the 16th to the 19th centuries.[14][15] Of these, an estimated 645,000 (5.4% of the total) were brought to what is now the United States. The overwhelming majority were shipped to Brazil[16] The slave population in the United States had grown to four million by the 1860 Census."
So you're going to contend that 5 times as many Africans died in transit as arrived in the New World? Back to history class, come back when you get a C or better. You're obviously relying on stupid "more of us died than them" arguments and then puffing up the numbers to ridiculous heights. Sick practice, dude, quite sick."
Please supply sources for your data. The fact that millions of africans died en route during the transatlantic slave trade is not up for debate. The fact you question it proves your racist slant.
Please repeat your "Gays cant get married = Jim Crow"/"Gays were treated worse than Afro Americans because some were killed in the Holocaust" rant from the other post you made so everyone can enjoy your racist bullshit.
November 14, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never said gays were treated worse than blacks because some died in the Holocaust. I said some were killed extremely horribly in the Holocaust, so don't dismiss the suffering of gays as just about marriage and housing.
I never denied that millions of slaves died in transport - I said 60 million is bullshit based on the number of slaves who were actually used. That doesn't make me racist to ask for sanity when discussing a serious issue.
November 14, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, how exactly would you have identified the gay people who might have marched in Jena, Louisiana? How do you know that none of the people you saw were gay? Assuming that everyone is straight has a name. It's called heterosexism.
November 14, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
clearly i am disappointed in you desi..now it all makes sense as to why you were so bitter to the very end.....your true colors finally revealed....no wonder you couldn't get off the hillary bandwagon....deep inside you fear obama's presidency will equate to the rise of the "feared blacks" or some other minority group????
original poster, i love it!!! TM you made an excellent point....we all have our own special interest, latinos included...i am latin and we dont tend to wag our tails until immigration is being mentioned...gays are silent on all issues except gay issues....we blamed obama for every single black man woman and child's action and now it is clear that we will blame every single black person for every peril..when will it end? is this what i can expect when a hispanic-american assumes the highest office??????
November 14, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what you're talking about, Cher. There were more blacks in Bill Clinton's Administration than you're going to see in Obama's. We'll see how much the average black's life changes under Obama's vs. how it did under Clinton.
Somebody oddly asked Jesse Jackson Sr. the other day if he ever thought he'd see the day when there'd be a black President. Should we proclaim Nov. 4, 2008 Year Zero of history?
November 14, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for getting it WRB. Its political stereotyping. You're black you must feel this way and must do this. You're gay you must feel this way and must do that. You're latino you must feel this way and must do this.
Millions of poor whites are oppressed but I guess they have no conscience or no morals right? What a horribly racist crock of shit.
Blame games, all groups have to vote based on whatever criteria people outside of the group choose, this is crazy.
Back in the 60's there were more goodfaith efforts to involve other people in the struggle. People act now as if the progressive community is really a community. Are we good neighbors in this community? Clearly not. We don't have intelligent compassionate leadership who are able to embrace others in that community and allow members to see that we really are on the same team, that we really do share a common interest. That lack of vision and direction is at the heart of the Black community's not understanding the plight of gays and lesbians better. Its at the heart of blacks and latinos not understanding each other better. You don't have a meeting of the minds at a distance.
I think its natural to be self-interested but if you want help from outsiders you have to engage them somehow, not just assume they will do something to come to your aid because of some estimation of how they should view the world.
November 14, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
This gets at another great point: For some reason, it's totally fine for whites (70% of Calfornia's likely voters, BTW) to hold religiously motivated conservative views about homosexuality. However, if blacks do it, they've somehow become plantation owners.
I completely oppose Prop. 8, but the fact is that it was legally put on the ballot in California (barring any objections you might have to the LDS Church's funding in light of their 501(c)3 status) and voted on. That's the democratic process at work. The opposition to Prop. 8 didn't work hard enough. Scarcely more than half of registered voters even voted on it. The vote was decided by 500k votes, less than one half of one percent of registered voters. Blaming Obama's success or impact on voter turnout is completely counter-intuitive. He was running a clinic on how to campaign and the opposition to Prop. 8 took a cut day. When exam time came, they flunked.
November 14, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been annoyed by the claims that if it hadn't been for those darned narrow-minded black folks, Prop 8 wouldn't have passed, which is such an obvious reductio ad absurdam that I've been amazed at how many times it's been repeated. Thanks for making the statistical case so clearly.
November 14, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm seeing a lot more blame go on Mormons from my gay buddies in SoCal. Go figure?
November 14, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, DF and thanks for getting this clear. It was important to get it right and you did.
November 14, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com weighed in on this issue earlier this week, and I tend to believe his analysis.
November 14, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a lot of the differences on values issues (so-called) are generational.
November 14, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last evening, Michael Steele was doing his media blitz, campaigning for the chairmanship of the RNC. He belched forth some "big tent" bromide about how the Republican Party had to move away from the (snake-bit) ideology of theocracy and bigotry (of course, he didn't use THOSE words), and include "Black, white, gay, straight.." (etc., etc.).
The program host stopped him right there, and asked him how he felt about CA voting-in Prop 8, when "even the Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger" thought it was a bad idea.
Steele had his answer on his hip: it's well-known, that BLACKS AND HISPANICS "overwhelmingly" voted against gay marriage in California. And how could anyone with a fair mind possibly be critical of this, when "the people have spoken"?
And there you have the new Republican meme, about how they can now remarket themselves as "inclusive", and still be who they are.
What a win-win for this Oreo scumbag. He gets to be a Black Republican Leader (not a job description with a hell of a lot of competition); he gets to run away from the tainted image of 21st century Republicanism (and get away with it); he gets to rehabilitate the shameful vote for continued second-class citizenship for gays; and if you didn't buy that last one, he blames it all on the Darkies and the Beaners.
I think he'll make a great RNC chair. Lord help us all (because you just know the media will fall drooling all over this "new face of the Republican Party"!).
November 14, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
They will love the new face and how it lies and lies and lies ... with a straight face ... on all these gay matters ... until it is revealed, as it has been with so many Republicans ... that he is gay ... or at some point in his life did something gay ... without actually being gay ... unless he actually is gay. Gawd! It hurts to follow their train os deception sometimes trying to think it runs on logical tracks. Nope. it's just got a bad case of truthiness.
November 14, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blaming vegetarians.
I've heard reports of people holding signs at anti-8 rallies that say things like, "Animals have more rights than gays," in reference to the overwhelming passage of Prop 2. Prop 2 bans some of the most intensive confinement of animals in factory farms (i.e. battery cages for hens), but not until 2015.
On its face, signs like that are ridiculous. And until the left can fully get its act together and stop attacking other historically oppressed groups (or those standing up for such groups), you can count on clever right-wingers exploiting these differences and continuing to keep all minority groups down.
We don't all have to agree on everything, but we should agree not to kick each other as we all struggle for justice.
November 14, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's time the chickens bound together and started looking out for the interests of others. They got theirs this time with Prop 2, and if they don't carry more weight, well it just may be chickens coming home to roost next time.
November 14, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without the help of Blacks, and Black churches Prop 8 would not have passed. Without the help of the Hispanics, and the churches they belong to. Prop 8 would not have passed.
November 14, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can believe whatever you want, but the salient facts don't agree with you.
November 14, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without the help of senior citizens and bingo halls, Prop 8 would not have passed.
That's it. No social security for them. No más.
November 14, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Rev. Wright was talking about Prop 2?
I don't see why everyone got all up in arms about that!
:)
November 14, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Of course, this would be a pretty radical over-sampling of African-Americans. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, African-Americans make up a mere 6% of likely voters. So, even if black voters had turned out at 100% and voted for Prop. 8 at 100%, the maximum effect they could have had would be minimal."
The sampling is random. The exit pollsters found that 10% of their randomly selected respondents were African-Americans, therefore the pollsters concluded that 10% of the voters on November 4th were African-American, meaning that they turned out in record numbers to support Barack Obama, which is consistent with what we saw all over the country. Likely-voter models particularly undersold African-American turnout, which was one of the big "known unknowns."
If black voters really did support Prop 8 by a margin of 69% (or even a margin of 62%, if we are incredibly generous with the margin of error), there's little question that high black turnout hurt Prop 8 by a significant amount. I think it's problematic to compare exit polls of actual voters to pre-election polling, especially if a small sample size is your problem; in that last Survey USA poll of 600 likely voters, they interviewed only 36 black voters.
But it's definitely true that no pre-election polling indicated that blacks supported Prop 8 at such high levels. While SurveyUSA receives a lot of flack for their methodology, the (pro-Prop 8) Field Poll's last poll only showed black voters supporting Prop 8 by a margin of 49 to 43. So I'm not sure what I believe, but it seems pretty likely that a.) black and hispanic voters disproportionately voted for Prop 8, b.) black and hispanic voters turned out in higher-than-expected numbers, and c.) high minority turnout hurt Prop 8.
Rather than scapegoating, it would be nice if Prop 8's supporters immediately began thinking of ways to reach out to these communities.
November 14, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Query: This word "disproportionate" keeps popping up. What would a proportionate vote from these ethnic communities have looked like, number-wise? 50/50?
Almost every poll in existence has had their methodology criticized. SUSA has been right plenty of times this year. Again, one of the main problems with this exit poll is that it's a single poll conducted by a single organization without comparison. The pre-election polls have a much clearer selection methodology and they also are in reasonable agreement.
So, your a), b) and c) may seem quite likely to you, but the numbers don't really support your conclusions.
I agree whole-heartedly with your final statement. Let's say for a moment that a), b) and c) are true. Here's what the GLBT communities in California, as well as all opponents of Prop. 8 , seem to have forgotten in the aftermath: Like it or not, some people feel this way and they have a right to. They also have a right to vote that way. The job is figuring out how to persuade them otherwise.
November 14, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The pre-election polls have a much clearer selection methodology"
Say what? The pre-election polls attempt to identify likely voters based on population/past voting demographics. Exit polls are a *random sample* of who actually voted. Do you have a problem with random sampling?
"they also are in reasonable agreement."
Actually, the aren't. Not that I've seen. The only sense in which they agree is that no pre-election poll I've seen showed such staggeringly high support among AAs for Prop 8. If you wanted to put together a post of multiple surveys to support that statement, maybe you should. But nothing we've said here based on SUSA and Field polls supports that conclusion.
So, your a), b) and c) may seem quite likely to you, but the numbers don't really support your conclusions.
Actually, the numbers do support my conclusions. Your problem is that you don't like the numbers. Unfortunately, you haven't put forth a particularly compelling case for why they should be discredited. You don't like the pollster? There's one SUSA likely-voter poll you like better? You think the sample size is too small? But you also think they oversampled AAs? *shrugs*
Like it or not, some people feel this way and they have a right to. They also have a right to vote that way. The job is figuring out how to persuade them otherwise.
I do not think anyone has a right to their bigotry when it deprives others of their inalienable rights. But pragmatically, I agree. These groups should be targeted by GBLT activists immediately. And not in the unfortunate ways they're currently being targeted.
November 15, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Show me the money. Which poll(s) back up what you're saying? I've shown you my numbers. Field, SUSA, PPIC, etc., all agree with what I'm saying and I've been transparent. Where's your data? There's one exit poll, as I've illustrated, that agrees with you.
As for a major problem with exit poll method, see Self-selection. I'm not sure why you think that random sampling is better than demographically weighted sampling. Do you have an explanation for this?
November 15, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with exit polls is that they're not random enough. They take several samples from the same voting district and no samples at all from others. Unfortunately, this is a necessary evil in their case. They're careful not to create a systematic bias, but their polling methodology can lead to a clustering bias making the potential for random error higher than what you would get for a similar sample size that didn't suffer from this short-coming.
November 15, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're either for equality or you're not.
Here the numbers are unquivoqual: there are enough gay couples wanting to marry to validate them. There are enough gay people.
They want to get married, just like their straight bros and sis.
But I see plenty of bigoted so-called progressives. Hypocrites, TM & supporters, just like their religionist republican churchy friends.
They are just a bit less socially retarded perhaps, but not by much.
November 14, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great conversation. Anyone interested in this topic would probably find something of value in a book by someone I know well.
Their Own Received Them Not: African American Lesbians and Gays in Black Churches
by Horace Griffin, Pilgrim Press, 2006
November 14, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, I don't think we gay people are blaming African-Americans in a *numerical* sense for the passage of Prop. 8. What is dismaying to us is that a group with such long experience of unequal treatment under law could have voted for this measure in such large numbers. Please remember as well that supporters of Prop. 8 did not simply refuse to extend equal rights to gays. They made a POSITIVE CHOICE to eliminate an existing right that had been guaranteed by the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. Thus, they actively *chose* to discriminate.
I understand that most straight people -- even so-called liberals -- are absolutely stunned that gay people are so angry, but really, how would *you* react if discrimination against you were voted into law? I realize it's hard for you to grasp, because you've enjoyed heterosexual privilege for so long that your status simply seems natural. Try to remember that you have rights you take for granted that are denied to us.
Second, if you doubt the exit poll results, you might want to take a look at this precinct analysis for the City and County of San Francisco: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/11/14/MNIQ144185.DTL&o=1 Given the racial composition of the neighborhoods involved, it tends to show that a significant majority of African-Americans in San Francisco voted for Prop. 8. And this in a city where a lack of exposure to gay people is not a likely explanation for the vote.
Third, please move into the 20th century and refer to us as "gays" or "gay and lesbians" or even the "GLBT community." Use of the word "homosexual" indicates that the speaker views gayness as a purely sexual matter.
November 14, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I have certainly both heard and read exactly this argument being made in a very numerical sense, particularly by referencing the 70/30 figures from the EMRMI poll.
I don't disagree with you about the overwhelming fact of discrimination inherent in Prop. 8. I voted against it and don't support it in any sense. I am also not stunned by the anger that is being expressed. It makes complete sense to me. With respect, how you do you know anything about my sexual orientation?
Do you have accompanying demographic data for this precinct analysis? One of the major problems here is that the CA Sec. of State doesn't do racial figures.
I don't mean any disrespect, but maybe you should move into the 20th century and drop the PC act. How do you know how I view gayness? How do you know that all gay people view it like you do? Maybe the GLBT community can get together and vote by committee for their preferred terminology.
November 15, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink