On Prop 8, and scapegoats.

[pecunium]

The "black vote" didn't pass Prop 8.

We have a black population of about 6 percent. Assume they all voted, that's about 1.9 millon people. Assume all of them (whch isn't the case, but bear with me)are of voting age, and all of them voted, and the 70 percent of the black vote was pro 8 is true.

That's 1.3 million votes. Last I checked the prop was passing by about 500,000 votes. But... about 600,000 of those 1.9 million are under the age of 18. And, sadly, a large percentage of that population is in prison right now, and not eligible to vote. so we can lop another 190,000 votes (with a conservative estimate of 10 percent of black either in prison, or on parole).

That gives us about 750,000 votes, assuming (arguendo) all the blacks in the state who are eligible are registered.

The amendment is ahead by about 500,000 votes. Ok, if every black in the state voted no, then the amendment would be dead.

There are 17 million registered voters in Calif. The stats say black are registered at about the same rate as other groups, so we can probably figure they are registered at, call it 60 percent (because Obama was certainly something of an in-group identifier, much as a the home state of a national candidate is expected to have a larger turnout in their favor).

Take those votes we tallied up and adjust for that number.... 525,000.

So yes, the total number of votes which have it ahead is almost exactly equal to the black voting population.

But there are an awful lot of white folks who voted, and a lot of hispanics too.

My neighbors account for at least two of the vote for. They are white. A really small percentage shift of the white vote would have made the difference. The absentee ballots (which are not, traditionally, black, but rather white folks) aren't reversing the trend.

The whole of the polity voted, the whole of the polity takes the rap. The white folks (and it was a whole lott a white folks spending the money to flood the airwaves with the ads equating a vote againt 8 with a vote for religious intolerance) voted for it. The hispanics voted for it, the asians voted for it.

Yeah, we might be justified in pointing fingers if the black population were the only group which voted for it. Even if we call it 70 percent of the black population who voted for it, that's only 20 points (roughly) more than the percentage of whites who voted for it.

Which means the part which matters is that differential; the actual EXTRA votes of the black population is about 150,000; and that's if every one who is registered actually showed up to vote.

Which means everyone else is to blame for, at least, 350,000 votes.

It's not their fault.

Comments

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

To do the same as I did for seldear, the marriage in the bible allows for divorce and remarriage. It has some differences, but it does allow for that; with some tolerably favorable (esp. for the time/place) treatment of the woman.

[lady-jem.livejournal.com]

Thing is, pretty much NO institution we have today is the same as those addressed in the Bible, but unfortunately there is a large and vocal branch of Christianity, the members of which believe that, regardless of the socio-cultural context in which it was written, the Bible is to be taken literally and un-interpreted for us today. (Because when God wrote it through the hand of the human scribe, God knew we would be reading it someday, or something like that.)

Except, of course, for the parts which tell us that eating shrimp cocktail is an abomination equal to homosexuality...or that it is a sin to loan money with interest on the loan...or the silence of women...or so many other things...

(and the new testament pretty much does say no divorce, sort of unequivocally...)

My own take, oversimplified though this might be, is that IMO any oppressed group has a limited ability to focus on more than one oppression at a time. Black and Latino communities are still struggling with strong racial oppression. Anglo-european communities, without other obvious oppressive structures, had the opportunity to settle down and deal seriously with gender inequality--there's a lot of deeply entrenched gender oppression (speaking in gross generalities, I know, don't shoot me!!!) in much of the Latino and AfAm communities, and I believe it goes largely unnoticed because the community as a whole is fighting the oppression AGAINST the community, and they simply don't have the resources to all-out deal with other layers of oppression going on within.

Back to the Anglo-European groups...after a fairly chunk of energy spent in the Catholics vs. Protestants wars (notice how forgotten those are?), we started dealing with gender inequality--it's not solved, but it's in retreat at least for the moment--so now we have the resources (inner as well as outer) to address LGBT discrimination. Latino and African-American communities just haven't gotten there yet; the oppression against their races as a whole are there, the oppression against women has barely been scratched, and there's the internal "culture of origin" stuff too, Mexicanos vs. Puertoriquenos vs. Salvadorans etc, African-Americans vs. Africans, and so forth. How much can a single community hope to address at any one time?

Hmm, this is the first time I've articulated this idea. Am I talking out of my nether orifice, or does this make a small amount of sense?
-Jem

[lady-jem.livejournal.com]

OH, and by the way, since I don't think I was entirely clear--this line of musing has really nothing to do with Prop 8, but was intended to address the question of why there isn't as much activism around LGBT issues in the black and Latino communities...

just to clarify.
--Jem