Good urban planning combats racism?

[Pizzuti]

Can good urban planning reduce racism? It's a pretty audacious point, but Nate Silver, numbers wizzard at 538.com who predicted the 2008 Presidential Election outcome to within fractions of a point, argues so.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/521

The argument is, bascially, that interaction with others of other races of cultures leads to tolerance (which is fairly logical).

Then he points out types of neighborhoods that are likely to foster that interaction (like a dense neighborhood on a square grid) and neighborhoods that aren't (like winding suburbs, where high fences separate the homes).

He could have gone into much more detail on HOW cities and dense neighborhoods foster that interaction, but 80% of the video is simply about discussing which states have self-admitted racism in their voting patterns or voted against Barack Obama in 2008 simply because of his race. Then he mentions the statistics that distinguish those states - particularly low education rates and highly rural populations.

But I do think there is a lot of truth to what he is saying, because certain kinds of neighborhoods ARE more racially tolerant than others, and I know from my experience canvassing door to door all summer and fall in 2008 that you can pretty much tell how 80% of the people in a neighborhood are going to vote once you step foot on the sidewalks and look at how the houses are built. I am white, but a lot of the people I was canvassing with were not and the way people treated them in a neighborhood was basically predictable. It's really incredible how easy people's political views are to stereotype - and how accurate you will find your judgments being - based on what kind of home design they live in.

[llamaorama]

Cool article.

just my opinion, the exurban cul-de-sac mcmansion type developments outside of city limits typical of the East Coast seem to be a different breed from the more utilitarian tract home subdivision commonly found in Texas. You wonder then if it's really just a coincidence that the east and midwest also has arguable worse socio-economic and race relations under the surface.

[sammo]

Racism, yes.

from what i understand, over 95% of the black vote went to McCain -no, correction -Obama. -the highly educated, law abiding, rational, independent thinking, 'inner city'/urban folk .

and i wonder what the pole numbers would have looked like if 95% of the white vote went to McCain -a relatively young, unknown, untested, unexperienced, radical rightwing community organizer.

until an infinitely popular and superior candidate like B.O. gets 95% of the vote, -black and white, i'm afraid there's a long way to go.

yes, racism.

as a canadian, my info/perception of the mighty usa may be distorted, of course.

[Samwill89]

Originally Posted by sammo

Racism, yes.

from what i understand, over 95% of the black vote went to McCain -no, correction -Obama. -the highly educated, law abiding, rational, independent thinking, 'inner city'/urban folk .

and i wonder what the pole numbers would have looked like if 95% of the white vote went to McCain -a relatively young, unknown, untested, unexperienced, radical rightwing community organizer.

until an infinitely popular and superior candidate like B.O. gets 95% of the vote, -black and white, i'm afraid there's a long way to go.

yes, racism.

as a canadian, my info/perception of the mighty usa may be distorted, of course.

Yup. Very distorted view of race in America.


How Al Gore Did in 2000:
Whites
Blacks 91%
Latinos 62%
Asians

How John Kerry Did in 2004:

Whites 41%
Blacks 88%
Latinos 53%
Asians 56%

How Obama Did in 2008:

Whites 43%
Blacks 95%
Latinos 67%
Asians 62%


Looks to me that no matter the race of the candidate, Blacks favor Democrats and whites favor Republicans. Obama did better among all racial groups, including Blacks by similar margins. From 2004, Obama improved 14% in the Latino category but only 7% for both Blacks and Asians and only 2% for whites. If anything, more whites were apprehensive to vote for Obama.

[sammo]

Originally Posted by Samwill89

Yup. Very distorted view of race in America.


How Al Gore Did in 2000:
Whites
Blacks 91%
Latinos 62%
Asians

How John Kerry Did in 2004:

Whites 41%
Blacks 88%
Latinos 53%
Asians 56%

How Obama Did in 2008:

Whites 43%
Blacks 95%
Latinos 67%
Asians 62%


Looks to me that no matter the race of the candidate, Blacks favor Democrats and whites favor Republicans. Obama did better among all racial groups, including Blacks by similar margins. From 2004, Obama improved 14% in the Latino category but only 7% for both Blacks and Asians and only 2% for whites. If anything, more whites were apprehensive to vote for Obama.

ah, the all important, all powerful 'voting block'.

the 'blacks' should thank the Demoncrats for all they've progressed in the last 50 years in america -especially the 'black' family unit.

Blacks favor Democrats and whites favor Republicans.

not to the same degree. not even close.

i'm not too sure how it works in the u.s. but in canada, we Liberals prey on the needy, un/misinformed, dependent, minority, , illegal immigrant, youth(college lefty), vote as well as the super-informed, college dwelling, marxist professor, union member, specialty coffee drinking....

[Samwill89]

Originally Posted by sammo

ah, the all important, all powerful 'voting block'.

the 'blacks' should thank the Demoncrats for all they've progressed in the last 50 years in america -especially the 'black' family unit.

Perhaps. You are correct. We have made a lot of progress in the last 50 years and things only get better. Home ownership is up, college enrollment is up. Most importantly, racial disparities between Blacks and Whites are decreasing. All the while Blacks are supporting Democrats.

The conservative criminal justice system needs a bit of work, but we are working on it.

[Pizzuti]

Lets be clear, when it comes to "racism," for a black American to vote for the "FIRST black nominee" is very different than for a white person to vote for "ONLY white nominees." That's the distinguishing factor Nate Silver has made.

Blacks will vote for black or white candidates. They voted for Al Gore and John Kerry. They also voted AGAINST Black candidate Alan Keyes in Illinois and against Michael Steele in Maryland. They were also overwhelmingly behind Hillary Clinton for Democratic nominee until February.

Most whites, similarly, vote along the lines of political ideology rather than race. A few do not, and the point of this article was to analyze those who do not. Nate Silver gave the first 2/3 of his presentation to distinguishing a person who voted for John McCain because they were racist from those who voted for John McCain for more wholesome reasons.

You ought to check out the presentation if you want to understand, before you start picking stuff apart, if you want your comments to be relevant to the conversation.

The math and the facts support the idea that blacks were excited by the prospect of the FIRST black president, but are not at all interested in having ONLY black presidents. They've voted for white people before and will again.

[sammo]

i guess you're right.

it's not as though the mainsteam media would promote one candidate as honest, intelligent, youthful, forward thinking, popular... and the other as extremist, racist, corrupt, stupid, deceitful, fringe...
it's not as though Hollywood or the 'pink glove' do exactly the same; endorse one ideology, ridicule the other. -same with 'print'.
so it can't be media driven.
(funny; up here in canada -gov.funded cbc just adores the tories and lambastes the grits & socialist party)

some folks are excused of 'lemming' behaviour if they really ,really want to elect a FIRST (fill-in-the-blank) president.
with all due respect to that long forgotten american M.L.King, 'content of character' ain't where it's at no more.
Damn your principles, vote your colour/race!


regarding "not checking out the presentation first", you're right. i didn't. sorry for having been so irrelevent. i'm canadian.

i have checked out this most excellent presentation since, however. great stuff. (love the expose about south philly & east L.A. bunch of uneducated hillbillies) very unbiased. very thorough. very scientific. very accurate. eg. Qoes race affect your vote? = effects the vote 'negatively'
(what if these rednecks just wanted to vote for the first.... octogenarian? nevermind)
like you, i'm sold.

we libs are so enlightened, so progressive, because we're exposed to and seek out such wisdom.



yes, it's because the cons/republicans have always been, still are, the party of slavery, segregation, secession and now, socialism!
-and stupidity!


p.s.
wow. nate went trolling for racism and found some! -good job.

[Pizzuti]

^Nate Silver earned his clout through accurate mathematical analysis that proved true, and didn't just garner it by being a liberal preaching to liberals. That kind of ideological nonsense can go on Fox News on the right or KOS on the left. Now he's making a rather audacious point which is why it's worthy of debate, but he's earned his credibility, and there's a difference between hypothesizing and preaching.

But your comments don't address anything, nor is it logical to think you can change somebody's ideology by insulting them, hyperbolizing their views or telling them they believe things in ways that they really don't.

I don't think you consider that; it looks to me like you're just gonna divide information you encounter into good stuff that fits your worldview and bad stuff that doesn't. I don't think you're really open to any new information or an exchange of ideas, which is something I'd say to anyone who pulls the "media bias" argument or right-leaning people who obsess over liberal attitudes towards race. The media didn't choose Obama - Obama was better at making messages that swim through the media, just as George W. Bush was better at it in his time. Nor do I think you came here for a conversation about the thread topic. You already knew what your mind was before you came here.

The slang term for that is "trolling," though it looks like you're already familiar with that word, huh? know anything I say is going to be slated away as having "liberal bias" or whatnot so lets just skip that step and let bygones be bygones.

[sammo]

please allow me a week or so to respond to this typ. misinformed vitriolic diatribe.
-gotta collect my thoughts, get some 'mtl' together...

[KB0679]

Originally Posted by sammo

some folks are excused of 'lemming' behaviour if they really ,really want to elect a FIRST (fill-in-the-blank) president.
with all due respect to that long forgotten american M.L.King, 'content of character' ain't where it's at no more.
Damn your principles, vote your colour/race!

For Blacks, principles and race simply intersected in Obama.

[Pizzuti]

You can respond, but I am not coming back to check what you write. This conversation doesn't interest me because, like I said, your ideology is set. Either you were just trying to be cute with your sarcasm in above comments or you are an ideologue who condescends because you think what you believe should be obvious to everyone and those who disagree are just stupid.

I was very politically involved last summer and made a lot of contacts with voters - and after that experience, I have heard far too many stupid, stupid, just bottomlessly stupid uniformed comments about race and politics, especially pertaining to black people and voting tendencies or collective interests, to need to get into another argument here on a forum that isn't vaguely about that, but happens to be 99% white and 99% male.

I don't need to hear people who have never shook hands with an african-american in their lives explain how it is the african-americans and their allies (myself included as an ally) are the real racist ones because we are excited about breaking the glass ceiling or because we brainstorm ways to expand opportunities and combat racism. But you are welcome to post, obviously I'm not a moderator and can't stop you.