Bigotry against the poor on the rise in tough economic times

[meow2u3]

Many Americans disdain the poor - and science proves it.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20130805_Reacting_to_the_poor_-_negatively.html#MTWir4KEoX1y62KP.99

When people were placed in neuroimaging machines and shown photos of the poor and homeless, their brains responded as though the photos depicted things, not humans - a sign of revulsion. Advocates for the poor aren't surprised, saying enmity toward the needy runs thick. Antipoverty types cite as evidence the ubiquitous calls from state and federal officials to cut food stamps and energy assistance; eliminate or reduce General Assistance, Social Security, Medicaid, Head Start, and welfare; fingerprint anyone receiving benefits; and so on.

"Americans react to the poor with disgust," said Susan Fiske, professor of psychology and public affairs at Princeton University and the designer of the neuroimaging tests. She has studied attitudes toward the poor for 12 years.


Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20130805_Reacting_to_the_poor_-_negatively.html#MTWir4KEoX1y62KP.99

Americans should react to the filthy rich the way they do so to the poor.

[el_bryanto]

1. Does science prove that other nations react differently?

I would think that would be universal.

Bryant

[meow2u3]

2. It's easier to blame the victims

than it is to put the blame where it belongs: squarely on the shoulders of criminals acting above the law.

[el_bryanto]

4. I don't disagree with that - but that's not what the test measures

It measures a viscreal reaction to the poor. I suspect that that reaction is made up of a number of different elements - from the fact that Homeless Person probably looks unkempt, and is usually in unpleasant surroundings. There's also guilt and shame mixed in there, as well as fear that you might end up on that situation.

More to the point the article makes the point that Americans, specifically Americans, react this way - but I would think it would be universal.

Having a viscreal reaction against the poor isn't a reasoned response though; you can have that response, but then think things through and place the blame where it belongs.

Bryant

[meow2u3]

8. The visceral reaction is to blame the victims

Blaming the victims is doing instinctively. Only when one makes a conscious effort to consider the hell a poor person is going through, suffering at the hands of the rich, as opposed to just automatically reacting and assuming that they have some moral defect instead of bad luck, that's when the victim blaming stops.

On the other hand, people instinctively assume that the superrich earned their inherited wealth, equating being a member of the lucky sperm club with hard work. Ever notice how a lot of folks assume the Waltons, the Kochs, and the like are so hard-working and industrious? These are the greedy few who never have to work a day in their lives, and they call the working poor, some who work two and three jobs to try to make ends meet, lazy and shiftless?

[el_bryanto]

11. One explanation to fit them all.

I think people's reactions are more complicated than that - I've tried to look up the contours of the original experiment but can't find out too much about it. But two questions for you

1. Do you think that people's visceral reaction to the poor is entirely a matter of "blaming the victims" or is it more complicated than that, being made up of a number of individual reactions?

2. Do you think that Americans are worse about this than people in other nations/cultures?

Bryant

[markiv]

3. i think one city actually had to ban 'no unemployed need apply'

employment ads

if that isnt sick, what is?

does make for more obidient workers though, 'just think what might happen, if we fired you'?

[hfojvt]

5. trouble is that the rich can clean themselves up

they wear nice clothes, they get nutrition and medical care and even pay others to groom them. The "filthy" rich are only filthy on the inside (some of them, not all) whereas the poor are usually filthy on the outside - they cannot afford clean clothes, or dental work or nutition. They are filthy on the outside, and thus repulsive to the average eye.

And truthfully, all of that hardship and deprivation does not really do much good for their inside either.

If you think I am a jerk now (and some do) well just let me live on the street for a week and see if I don't become a snarling, paranoid maniac looking to get what I need any way I can.

[Mr Dixon]

6. SMH

The poor have always been demonized; human kind has stopped evolving IMO

[theHandpuppet]

7. It's only getting worse, too

There were a number of threads on this issue during a short span some 8 years ago. When asked why so many people looked down upon the poor, I posted a few responses; the ones below I gleaned from my DU Journal, circa 2005.

It's because in America poverty is considered a moral failing

Posted by theHandpuppet in General Discussion (Through 2005)
Mon Sep 05th 2005, 01:59 PM

This is a nation which has been brainwashed to believe that greed is good. That wealth is a reward for the morally superior. It's not only preached from every boardroom in America but puplits of megachurches whose leaders live in gilded mansions. God wants you to be rich! If only you pray hard enough, if you are worthy enough, you too will be rewarded!

Of course, none of this is consistent with the true teachings of Jesus. Capitalism is its own twisted faith which has hitched its medicine show to the evangelical wagon. The longer I hang around this planet, the more I'm convinced that unfettered capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive concepts.

**********
I think in this country we are frightened by the poor

Posted by theHandpuppet in General Discussion (Through 2005)
Fri Aug 19th 2005, 01:52 PM

In this society poverty is considered to be the result of failure -- either failure of intellect, of ambition, or even of morality. To be poor in this country is to be defeated and unworthy. Ergo, no one wants to identify with the "losers" in this society. People with money and power are the "winners", even though they could also be the most vile creatures who ever walked the earth. Wealth is worshipped.

My take is that many of the poor turn to fundamentalism for the sense of belonging they cannot find in a society which rejects them. This holds true no matter what god someone worships. In a greed-motivated society (or world) poverty is akin to a moral failing, but in the church their "morals" and worth can be measured and held in higher esteem than those whose riches can be measured in dollars and cents.

Make any sense? I'm rambling now and probably should just give it a rest

************

(This last post will probably offend some here. All I can say is, you had to have been there.)

Class Warfare Here On DU -- STOP IT!

Posted by theHandpuppet in General Discussion (Through 2005)
Fri Aug 19th 2005, 11:30 AM

Y'know, I'm really getting very discouraged by what I view as the class warfare too often being waged within many threads here on DU. I can't tell you just how many times within the course of a single day I read disparaging remarks here about people in poor and/or rural areas. Vicious stereotyping of the poor is not something I expect here on DU.

Some of the comments I've read just today are worthy of the worst Freeper posts, ridiculing what poor folk eat, drive, where they live, go to the bathroom, et al ad infinitum.

Let me give you a clue, folks: it's not the poor in this country who sent us to Iraq, who are raking in billions via corruption and illegal wars, who are profiting from fixed elections, sucking up to lobbyists, driving Hummers, living in mini-mansions and gated communities, stealing from state pension funds, ripping off the American people via corporate robbers like Enron, who are donating millions upon millions into Republican coffers, who own the RW hate radio stations and mediawhore outlets, who spew their twisted visions of our future from their RW think-tanks, or whose policies are being rebelled against in vigils all across this land.

Are there, among poor folk, those whose actions and deeds are revolting, lacking in compassion or downright greedy? You bet. Yet for every small town preacher taking advantage of a poor widow on Social Security there are a few score and more of millionaires right in DC who are cannibalizing millions upon millions of their own citizens. Too bad their vile isn't so eagerly exploited by the media -- but then they own the media, don't they.

The Democratic Party is supposed to be the party which represents, among its number, the disenfranchised of this nation -- and that includes the poor and working class folks in this country of ours. Sometimes you'd never know it by some of the posts I read here on DU.

I've had my say. Flame away. I really don't give a damn. I've read enough poor-bashing posts here today to last me for quite a spell.

[GiaGiovanni]

10. "it's not the poor in this country who sent us to Iraq, " BRAVO!

"...who are raking in billions via corruption and illegal wars, who are profiting from fixed elections, sucking up to lobbyists, driving Hummers, living in mini-mansions and gated communities, stealing from state pension funds, ripping off the American people via corporate robbers like Enron, who are donating millions upon millions into Republican coffers, who own the RW hate radio stations and mediawhore outlets, who spew their twisted visions of our future from their RW think-tanks, or whose policies are being rebelled against in vigils all across this land. "

[theHandpuppet]

15. There was actually a poster in that thread...

...who stated that people were poor because they were stupid!

It was actually quite a long and overall, a very positive discussion. At that time there were many active threads regarding the issues of poverty but I don't see nearly as many now and rarely do they last long. I have no idea why. If you want to read some of those old threads you can access them via my journal. I haven't saved much to my journal for the past several years but I tucked away a few discussions from that time.

[GiaGiovanni]

19. Thank you so much.

I just thought you stated it so eloquently.

[eilen]

9. Politically eight years ago no one wanted to mention the word poverty

it was allla-bout the middle class.

And then, there were those who were losing their homes, lost jobs etc.

Well, after the unemployment ran out, they became unmentionable as well until Occupy, which I must recollect, despite a few participants and their supporters, had mixed if not minimal support here.

Now I get my news about Occupy on FDL, G+ and FB.

[SoCalDem]

12. Media plays a LARGE part of the problem

Watch how whenever they do a bit about poverty/hunger, how they use the subtle filming of particular people within the story.

I noticed it last night even on Bill Moyers' show about Hunger in America.

They showed a protest and the camera honed in on women with rather expensive hairdos & of course one with facial piercing/jewelry.

Media often goes out of their way to show poor people with alcohol/cigarettes/cell phones/fancy nails, etc.

To a LARGE swath of right wing America, these are indicators of people who just use their available cash for "things other than food for their kids".

It could also be that the people who organize these protests and photo ops are not doing such a good job about how perception works.

America is no longer a forgiving/generous nation. We are now into blaming/shaming and contempt. When people are poor, "we" expect them to LOOK poor.

Back when almost everyone was poor (before WWII), and we all lived "with our own kind"...poor next door to poor, it did not matter so much, but now that video is so pervasive and persuasive, it's more important than ever to get pretty damned precise about what needs to be done, and how to pick the people who will represent (for the press/cameras/videographers) the masses.

Most people have (within their own families) people who have hit them up for a loan or for help because they were desperately poor/in need...only to find out later that they did not use that loaned money for the intended purpose, and instead used it for something the loaner considered to be frivolous.

To the people who need convincing (and whose votes are desperately needed), things like $500 phones, expensive weaves, fancy nails, tattoos, jewelry, etc seem wasteful, and do not encourage them to believe they are truly needy.

[meow2u3]

13. The media stereotype the poor

They think poverty should be no less than utter destitution.

Forget about those who were middle class, with the cell phone, big screen TV, reliable cars, and other little luxuries they bought when they could afford them, only to become poor through no fault of one's own because of job loss, hospital bills, or other unforeseen events.

What are the new poor supposed to do? Sell all the stuff they have and beg on the streets?

[SoCalDem]

16. It's a push-pull thing

While many people are recently poor, the long-term, generational poverty at which most federal programs are aimed, is almost always presented in the media with a different face than the suburban white family who lost their house. Their dilemma is perceived as a temporary thing (which it is likely to NOT be these days).

The people we have all seen for DECADES (as representative of "the poor" are usually the inner-city poor (usually single Moms). Often the reporter tell us the various last names of the children (to reinforce, subtly that there are multiple Dads, but no husband). Are the last names of the children necessary?..nope..

[meow2u3]

17. Why doesn't anyone pay attention to the rural poor?

Is it because they're too remote to matter? Or is it that most of them are white?

[SoCalDem]

18. Rural poor are not "interesting" to the media, since they tend to cover

people in their own spheres. It's not fair, but with media corporations cutting back, they no longer fund longterm investigative reporting.

Often, the rural poor also tend to be very fundamentalist religious people who may not want to participate with the "big-city/elite" media types.

Our poverty programs should be totally INCOME-related, regardless of who you are or where you live, but it's turned into a zero-sum "game", where one group's advantage is automatically another's loss

[RedRocco]

20. if I was to sell everything I own

I doubt I would clear $500

[ladyVet]

22. How dare poor people even think of having stuff!

They think poverty should be no less than utter destitution.

Exactly. And there are plenty who won't be satisfied until the poor have nothing and are on the streets, where they become the target for even more hate and denigration.

What are the new poor supposed to do? Sell all the stuff they have and beg on the streets?

Well, that's what everybody tells them to do. Sell their stuff and live off that. Like another poster commented, I'd be lucky to get $500, if I sold everything I owned, and got top dollar for it. Which I wouldn't, because all my stuff is old and worn-out. I'd be surprised if I could get $50.

Look, I take a lot of the blame for being poor. But the actions of the government and corporations have to take their share of it, too. I was born and raised in poverty, but I tried to pull myself out of it. Joined the USAF, got some education under the GI bill. For a few periods over the years, things have been okay, but for the most part I've been at best working poor.

I've trusted people that let me down, and ended up raising three kids on my own. It wasn't easy, but they had better than I did. Now, I'm slowly dropping further and further into a level of poverty I never thought I'd see again. No job, no hope for one, and the constant worry that Social Security will be gone before I can apply for it. Only seven more years!

My health is not so great, body is worn out, but without a good medical history I can't get disability. So I hang on. Cut back, squeeze a penny into a nickle.

I was writing, until I had a small breakdown due to stress (parent's ill health, son acting up and getting into trouble), but that didn't bring in much sales. I took a break, and will be getting back to that. Who knows, maybe I'll end up making some money at it. Stranger things have happened.

What I'm trying to say is, yes, people make bad decisions, spend their money unwisely, but also, things happen that are out of your control and you never know when it might be you that's filling out the food stamp forms, hoping like hell the pukes that control your state hasn't managed to take away all the funding.

[Mojorabbit]

14. K and R nt

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

21. It is the combination of a lot of factors, some of them just suck.

For some it is as simple as any other issue where an intractable 1950's mentality that says that any sober man who shows up on time can find a job goes unchallenged and unquestioned whether the jobs exist or not. These are usually the same people who in the same breath will blame Obama for the lack of jobs and then claim there are jobs aplenty. Another is most people don't have to look very far beyond their extended family to find somebody who has completely fucked up their life through their own actions, if they don't have much sympathy for their own kin, they aren't going to extend it to strangers.

And then there is the uncomfortable truth that a lot of the poor are pretty difficult to be sympathetic to. My brother works a lot with transient youth and for every one claiming they ran away from abuse, there are a bunch who got kicked out of the house for smoking pot and dropping out of school and actually seem perfectly content with a life of substance abuse, shoplifting, camping on the beach, panhandling and gradually covering all their visible flesh with prison quality tattoos and shrapnel. They don't want a plane ticket home, they don't want educational assistance or job training, they refuse medical aide (other than accepting condoms) unless they have an abscessed tooth the size of a golf ball. My brother, who is in something less than a perfect position to harshly judge the life decisions of others is just bewildered by them. It is very tough to whip up much sympathy for able bodied youths who drop out of school to choose a life of vagrancy.