“If the purges [of potential voters], challenges and ballot rejections were random, it wouldn’t matter. It’s anything but random. For example, an audit by the State of Washington found that a Black voter was 400% more likely than a white voter to have their mail-in ballot rejected. Rejection of Black in-person votes, according to a US Civil Rights Commission study in Florida, ran 14.3% or one in seven ballots cast.”
"[…] Democracy can win* despite the 2.3% suppression headwind.
And that’s our job as Americans: to end the purges, the vigilante challenges, the ballot rejections and the attitude that this is all somehow OK."
In/out groups are natural, but the establishment of those groups on ‘racial’ lines is totally constructed. The concept of race itself doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, it’s a fixation on specific phenotypic traits.
Notice how racial bias is fixated on skin color while other phenotypic differences are largely ignored; people with different colored eyes or hair, different nose shapes, different hair textures, etc. 400 years ago skin tone was similarly trivial, but that changed with the rise of chattel slavery.
The core tenet of tribalism is “They aren’t like us.” That might be based on skin color, hair type, clothing, smell (from different diets), behavior. Modern racism (from the last couple hundred years) likely has some elements of more traditional tribalism with relaxed standards so the people a few hundred miles away can start to wrap their heads around the idea that Irish, for instance, are more or less the same as British.
I do hope people can get to the idea that anyone from a given point on this planet (so far) is just a person and not an outsider, but it looks like we have a way to go.
That’s just not accurate. Its historically been cultural, not phenotypes.
Prisoners of war, which were different skin colors, tended to be accepted into the group once they adapted the captor’s customs.
For the last 200 years, a significant amount of slavery has been limited to certain phenotypes. I agree that prior to that, it was less prevalent. That doesn’t mean we don’t have a historical model of slavery based on phenotype, it’s just more recent history.
It means it’s an abberation.
An aberration like industrialization, greater transportation, and intragenerational mobility, causing widespread societal change and cultural norms?
Nah, even smaller than that. It’s pretty much limited to European cultures, and only for the last 400 years or so.
This is what I was trying to say but didn’t have the foresight to elaborate and that seems to have earned me some downvotes lol