Political Vids/Images

[sophist]

Nab's pissed you insulted Montana. 

[nab]

Nab's pissed you insulted Montana.

There is truth here, but insulted isn't really the word.  More like misrepresented western history in order to help draw a false dilemma about eastern history.       

[rowjimmy]

White southern racists voted for Romney.

There's lots of them in the South rural areas.

[Superfreakie]

I have a lot of family in the deep South and many of them are very open-minded and liberal (not all, mind you). But this is interesting... makes you think a bit, eh?

Makes me think that the publisher of these two juxtaposed images believes that false dichotomies substitute for real historical analysis. 

For instance, it gives the impression that a state's official legal stance on slavery in 1846 can be correlated with favoring a republican candidate for president in 2012.  Really?  You don't even have to carry a minor in any social science to understand that  bucket has too many holes to dip water from the well.

Secondly, the juxtaposition assumes that the development of political identity, in states west of the Mississippi, conforms to eastern decisions about the state of slavery in the west in 1846, while ignoring local, regional, and supra-regional history.     


It's a catchy info graphic, but not much more than a pretty picture for those with the same artistic taste as the creator.         

Really? One might suggest that you're the one who has emotionally extrapolated to the extreme. For example, the map could have easily been interpreted as simply highlighting an America divided along a demarcated fault line that has not shifted in nearly two centuries. This, regardless of the political issues of the day.

Pompous PhD response......sadly, 1st year university logic. (sorry Bud, someone had to)   

[nab]

I have a lot of family in the deep South and many of them are very open-minded and liberal (not all, mind you). But this is interesting... makes you think a bit, eh?

Makes me think that the publisher of these two juxtaposed images believes that false dichotomies substitute for real historical analysis. 

For instance, it gives the impression that a state's official legal stance on slavery in 1846 can be correlated with favoring a republican candidate for president in 2012.  Really?  You don't even have to carry a minor in any social science to understand that  bucket has too many holes to dip water from the well.

Secondly, the juxtaposition assumes that the development of political identity, in states west of the Mississippi, conforms to eastern decisions about the state of slavery in the west in 1846, while ignoring local, regional, and supra-regional history.     


It's a catchy info graphic, but not much more than a pretty picture for those with the same artistic taste as the creator.         

Really? One might suggest that you're the one who has emotionally extrapolated to the extreme. For example, the map could have easily been interpreted as simply highlighting an America divided along a demarcated fault line that has not shifted in nearly two centuries. This, regardless of the political issues of the day.

Pompous PhD response......sadly, 1st year university logic. (sorry Bud, someone had to)

You can pretend that interpret this info graphic applies to any political issue on any day, but that is not what is presented here.  We are presented with one data point relating to the 2012 election and another dealing with a state/territory breakdown of the legal standing of slavery in 1846.  Then we are asked to make some broad comparison between the two images.   

That you make the valid generalization that this info graphic could apply to any issue on any day, doesn't undermine my valid observation that the state of slavery in 1846 isn't necessary a predictor of state election returns in 2012, especially in states west of the Mississippi.       

You have raised a valid point though, perhaps I should have left out the ad hominem language attacking the creator of the info graphic as it undermines my point making it seem emotional.  Perhaps you could exercise the same professional courtesy.             


Edit:  Upon further review, this is a better way to say what I meant.  Your interpretation is valid and not pretend. 

[kellerb]

Has anybody called you guys fags yet?  USA USA USA

[nab]

Has anybody called you guys fags yet?  USA USA USA

Let's see, I was an awkward poor kid at a school full of rich kids, I couldn't play sports, and wrote poetry.


Nope.  You're the first!











Thanks for the comic relief though.   

[gah]

For your entertainment:

http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/

[twatts]

For your entertainment:

http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/

White people make me laugh...

Terry

[runawayjimbo]

I have a lot of family in the deep South and many of them are very open-minded and liberal (not all, mind you). But this is interesting... makes you think a bit, eh?

Makes me think that the publisher of these two juxtaposed images believes that false dichotomies substitute for real historical analysis. 

For instance, it gives the impression that a state's official legal stance on slavery in 1846 can be correlated with favoring a republican candidate for president in 2012.  Really?  You don't even have to carry a minor in any social science to understand that  bucket has too many holes to dip water from the well.

Secondly, the juxtaposition assumes that the development of political identity, in states west of the Mississippi, conforms to eastern decisions about the state of slavery in the west in 1846, while ignoring local, regional, and supra-regional history.     


It's a catchy info graphic, but not much more than a pretty picture for those with the same artistic taste as the creator.         

Really? One might suggest that you're the one who has emotionally extrapolated to the extreme. For example, the map could have easily been interpreted as simply highlighting an America divided along a demarcated fault line that has not shifted in nearly two centuries. This, regardless of the political issues of the day.

Pompous PhD response......sadly, 1st year university logic. (sorry Bud, someone had to)

That may be an equally valid interpretation, but I'd suggest it's a rather naive one (perhaps intentionally so). The implication of showing those two maps next to each other is pretty clear IMO: that lasting racial biases are the dominant influence the voting patterns in the South, at least in the election/re-election of the first black president. And on this basis, I agree with nab that this is a false dichotomy that grossly misrepresents the issues that voters in various regions of the country consider. For example, I would argue that Southern voters influenced by religious issues far outweigh those who are motivated by racial ones.

And while I agree there has been little cultural shift along these fault lines, the electoral ramifications are far more complicated which was, again, IMO clearly the intent of A/B'ing the two charts. In that respect, the original image tells us no more than these two:

For your entertainment:

http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/

http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/

Oh, GAH
:shakehead:

[rowjimmy]

Also, it bears noting that the electoral infographic is incomplete as the racists in FLA went blue.

[PIE-GUY]

I have a lot of family in the deep South and many of them are very open-minded and liberal (not all, mind you). But this is interesting... makes you think a bit, eh?

Makes me think that the publisher of these two juxtaposed images believes that false dichotomies substitute for real historical analysis. 

For instance, it gives the impression that a state's official legal stance on slavery in 1846 can be correlated with favoring a republican candidate for president in 2012.  Really?  You don't even have to carry a minor in any social science to understand that  bucket has too many holes to dip water from the well.

Secondly, the juxtaposition assumes that the development of political identity, in states west of the Mississippi, conforms to eastern decisions about the state of slavery in the west in 1846, while ignoring local, regional, and supra-regional history.     


It's a catchy info graphic, but not much more than a pretty picture for those with the same artistic taste as the creator.         

Really? One might suggest that you're the one who has emotionally extrapolated to the extreme. For example, the map could have easily been interpreted as simply highlighting an America divided along a demarcated fault line that has not shifted in nearly two centuries. This, regardless of the political issues of the day.

Pompous PhD response......sadly, 1st year university logic. (sorry Bud, someone had to)

That may be an equally valid interpretation, but I'd suggest it's a rather naive one (perhaps intentionally so). The implication of showing those two maps next to each other is pretty clear IMO: that lasting racial biases are the dominant influence the voting patterns in the South, at least in the election/re-election of the first black president. And on this basis, I agree with nab that this is a false dichotomy that grossly misrepresents the issues that voters in various regions of the country consider. For example, I would argue that Southern voters influenced by religious issues far outweigh those who are motivated by racial ones.

And while I agree there has been little cultural shift along these fault lines, the electoral ramifications are far more complicated which was, again, IMO clearly the intent of A/B'ing the two charts. In that respect, the original image tells us no more than these two:

Everyone knows that before Nixon, the south went for Dems all the back to the Civil War. Reagan fully realized he could win the South by turning those Southern whites into "values voters."  That is why he launched his campaign in 1980 in philadelphia Miss. with a speech about states rights. He was, not so subtly, reaching out to that racist core. That has been the Repub strategy ever since.

If you don't think Jim Crowe laws in place recently enough that even my mother remembers using "whites-only" restrooms are still affecting the way people vote, you are naive.

[rowjimmy]

I have a lot of family in the deep South and many of them are very open-minded and liberal (not all, mind you). But this is interesting... makes you think a bit, eh?

Makes me think that the publisher of these two juxtaposed images believes that false dichotomies substitute for real historical analysis. 

For instance, it gives the impression that a state's official legal stance on slavery in 1846 can be correlated with favoring a republican candidate for president in 2012.  Really?  You don't even have to carry a minor in any social science to understand that  bucket has too many holes to dip water from the well.

Secondly, the juxtaposition assumes that the development of political identity, in states west of the Mississippi, conforms to eastern decisions about the state of slavery in the west in 1846, while ignoring local, regional, and supra-regional history.     


It's a catchy info graphic, but not much more than a pretty picture for those with the same artistic taste as the creator.         

Really? One might suggest that you're the one who has emotionally extrapolated to the extreme. For example, the map could have easily been interpreted as simply highlighting an America divided along a demarcated fault line that has not shifted in nearly two centuries. This, regardless of the political issues of the day.

Pompous PhD response......sadly, 1st year university logic. (sorry Bud, someone had to)

That may be an equally valid interpretation, but I'd suggest it's a rather naive one (perhaps intentionally so). The implication of showing those two maps next to each other is pretty clear IMO: that lasting racial biases are the dominant influence the voting patterns in the South, at least in the election/re-election of the first black president. And on this basis, I agree with nab that this is a false dichotomy that grossly misrepresents the issues that voters in various regions of the country consider. For example, I would argue that Southern voters influenced by religious issues far outweigh those who are motivated by racial ones.

And while I agree there has been little cultural shift along these fault lines, the electoral ramifications are far more complicated which was, again, IMO clearly the intent of A/B'ing the two charts. In that respect, the original image tells us no more than these two:

Everyone knows that before Nixon, the south went for Dems all the back to the Civil War. Reagan fully realized he could win the South by turning those Southern whites into "values voters."  That is why he launched his campaign in 1980 in philadelphia Miss. with a speech about states rights. He was, not so subtly, reaching out to that racist core. That has been the Repub strategy ever since.

If you don't think Jim Crowe laws in place recently enough that even my mother remembers using "whites-only" restrooms are still affecting the way people vote, you are naive.

My mother can recall playing with the little black girl from down the road when visiting her grandmother's house in Alabama. That little girl was a fine playmate for a 6yo but, according to great-grandma, she was not welcome at the table for lunch.

[kellerb]

Has anybody called you guys fags yet?  USA USA USA

Let's see, I was an awkward poor kid at a school full of rich kids, I couldn't play sports, and wrote poetry.


Nope.  You're the first!











Thanks for the comic relief though.

Just letting my red-state-ness show.
/Murica

[runawayjimbo]

Everyone knows that before Nixon, the south went for Dems all the back to the Civil War. Reagan fully realized he could win the South by turning those Southern whites into "values voters."  That is why he launched his campaign in 1980 in philadelphia Miss. with a speech about states rights. He was, not so subtly, reaching out to that racist core. That has been the Repub strategy ever since.

If you don't think Jim Crowe laws in place recently enough that even my mother remembers using "whites-only" restrooms are still affecting the way people vote, you are naive.

I know the idea that Reagan was trying to appease the "racist core" by uttering that malicious phrase "states rights" is accepted doctrine on the left, but I really don't understand this. But while I had read what people on both sides have said about the speech and the implications of saying "states rights" given the history, I had never actually seen or read the speech. So I did. And I gotta say, I don't see anything even remotely racist in this speech. It wasn't even a speech focusing on states rights; he only said the words once and they were mentioned in the context of the failings of overarching federal bureaucracy, not as support for discrimination and certainly not as an appeal to a "racist core".

Look, I'm no Reagan-ite. For all of his worship in the GOP right now, people seem to forget that he raised taxes (twice), tripled the deficit, and oversaw a massive increase in federal spending and in the size and scope of gov't. But saying that he was appealing to Southern racists because he thought that the federal gov't had exceeded it's authority just doesn't add up to me. YMMV

As for the legacy of Jim Crowe and racism in the South, as I said earlier, I agree it influences some people's vote (and a diminishing number at that), I just don't believe it is THE reason why the South is so red, especially given the map has looked virtually the same with our first black president as it did in the 7 prior all white dude elections.