← Back to context

Comment by deepfriedchokes

2 hours ago

I don’t think the issue with Civil Rights legislation was the Civil War, I think the issue was equality.

As President Lyndon Johnson 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.”

Racism isn’t about race at its core, it’s redirected anger from being exploited and abused by people in power. There is a reason people in power always blame “the immigrants” or “the Jews”; it’s redirection.

This doesn't just apply to race. The whole "trans people in women's bathrooms/sports" panic was another example of people being told that a tiny minority of people are a huge threat that we all need to focus on, while we were being screwed over by a kleptocracy. Same with "Antifa."

And it worked. Politicians do this because it works.

  • True, the right used this against the left because this issue, and particularly the aspect of males in female sport, highlights a set of absurd beliefs that are unfortunately quite common on the left. Political parties pushing ridiculous views tends to be a vote loser, even if the impact of these views when translated into policy is relatively small. It's like how a flat-earther politician would put a lot of people off.

This seems like an oversimplification and one of your own examples shows it. Aren’t “the Jews” today in power or in very close proximity, not just locally but on the world stage? Are they redirecting the anger to themselves? Or is there more to the reasons people would direct their hate or dislike towards an entire group of people?

Not saying that you’re wrong, but there’s more to it. Even when not directed by those in power, some people need an external reason for their own failures. They need a target for their anger that is not themselves.