I think there’s truth in what you’re saying though - single family zoning is an easy example. Also when they talk about welfare on the news and only show black people (even though more white people are on welfare iirc) - or how the sister reply to your comment gets indignant demanding you “explain how opposition to welfare is racism” and in the next sentence complains about minority communities. So there’s definitely a racial component.
I guess I mostly agree, we just see race more easily than class because of arbitrary skin color categorization. I hope in the future both are irrelevant.
Ok so how would one oppose welfare programs and not be labeled racist? Do you believe there are no individuals taking advantage of the welfare system and that pointing out anyone who is would be racist?
0. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwa...
What I mean is that a line of reasoning so often used these days: "this affects race X more therefore it's racist/racially motivated" is just incorrect thinking.
Would you like to take any guesses of any of those issues not being involved in poor members of minority groups remaining poor?
It's a direct answer to "Also, please explain why impoverished minority communities have not vastly improved regardless of the constantly increasing money tossed into welfare programs."
Food assistance, subsidized housing, and monthly cash payments are only really short-term stabilizing tools. For that they can be useful, but those systems are not designed or equipped to vastly improve the wealth and self-reliance of impoverished communities.
The key word in "impoverished minority communities" is "communities". Good schools, grocery stores, street maintenance, good transit, good jobs within driving distance, fair lending (and honestly lending practices designed to fix the damage of generations of unfair lending), vocational training, job placement assistance, enforcement of building codes on landlord-owned buildings, stable utility infrastructure including broadband Internet, and other things stable, wealthier communities take for granted are necessary to have a stable, flourishing community population.
You are stunningly naive if you think that a poor person acting more "upper class" isn't reminded that they're "out of their lane" more than someone rich acting "working class".
You make that sound easy, but I see the situation as symmetric. For example, my wife grew up wealthier than I did - and when it came time for us to buy a car, her first question was "how big a car would we need to comfortably move our family around" while mine was "what's the most affordable?"
it's a completely different mindset - she is frustrated that I default to a poor mindset and I am frustrated that she defaults to a rich one. Neither one is easy to switch.
You say that like everyone else isn't doing the exact same thing. Being privileged is all about playing the "get everyone else's approval" game. But coming from a different social context it's even more basically a way of showing others respect and earning their trust, so it's not without consequence.
If you’re totally financially independent you’re more free to do what you want, independent of class behavior expectations (or even in contradiction of them). They no longer matter that much (unless you’re doing something that requires politics or people).
Paul Fussell's Class documents the exact phenomenon OP describes. Wealth is not class [1]; class is much more complex. For example, poor academics are higher class than rich blue-collar workers. Donald Trump is crazy rich but affects many of the working-class behaviours described in said book (technically "high prole"). Barack Obama has much less money but most would view him as upper-middle class. Nobody would accuse the above of being "out of their lane".
My very rough approximation: class is something like the integral of wealth over very long periods of time. Being rich and well-connected for long periods gives you a chance to accumulate high-status behaviours and preferences, which can persist even when the wealth doesn't, and continue to confer benefits. Preferring golf or tennis to say, bowling, doesn't necessarily come with a major difference in affordability. But being good at golf might help your career more than bowling. Reading more helps in tons of ways, and most people only pick up this habit if they grow up with access to good education and parental cognitive surplus.
[1] https://resourcegeneration.org/breakdown-of-class-characteri...
On a related note, I think the US approach to dismissing class is preferable to the UK where it’s very explicit.
While both approaches have issues, when it’s explicit in the culture people seem to discriminate on it more (or even self-sort themselves based on identity).
I think ideally it’s better for a culture to try to not do that, but pragmatically it’s good to be aware of its existence in order to be successful. I mostly chalk it up to social skills.
On specifically being told to “stay in your lane” my point was more that if you’re behaving a certain way you won’t be told that, because the other people will assume you’re like them. It’s not only about wealth (though as in the article, the behavior is often related).
Huh. My perception has always been that America is far more obsessed with class and “keeping up with the Joneses” than Britain.
That said, I have in the past been called “rich” in a derogatory manner just for owning an iPad. But that’s more an amusing anecdote than social commentary. I find this type of thing to be the exception rather than the norm.
For context I’m a Brit with a decent job but my family is certainly not upper middle class or even middle class and all my friends are working class because those are the people I naturally get along with. For the most part the fact I make more money doesn’t cause any friction in those social circles. One of my mates even said to me if he didn’t know better he’d assume I lived on a council estate.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is the class lines are very blurred in modern day British society except for at the extremes. As such it’s not something people tend to obsess over.
On the other hand I’ve found that, in general, middle class Yanks tend to care more about being perceived a certain way so people know they’re middle class or upper middle class or whatever else. I’ve even seen them argue over exactly what constitutes “real” upper middle class compared to regular middle class. Not something I’ve ever seen Brits do.
> My perception has always been that America is far more obsessed with class and “keeping up with the Joneses” than Britain.
The US is obsessed with material consumption. As such it probably plays a bigger part in status here than in the UK.
> I guess the point I’m trying to make is the class lines are very blurred in modern day British society except for at the extremes.
Perhaps this is a reflection of increasing university education and the changing nature of work away from factory jobs. In a way it's a move to a more American view of class, where most people are considered 'middle class'.
> As such it’s not something people tend to obsess over. > I’ve even seen them argue over exactly what constitutes “real” upper middle class compared to regular middle class. Not something I’ve ever seen Brits do.
Brits regularly obsess over whether someone or some hob qualifies as working class or not though!
> Being rich and well-connected for long periods ... which can persist even when the wealth doesn't, and continue to confer benefits. Preferring golf or tennis to say, bowling, doesn't necessarily come with a major difference in affordability. But being good at golf might help your career more than bowling
He was literally rich from the day he was born to old age. He was getting those benefits whole his life. He plays golf.
What he is not, is not being good person.
A lot of his political popularity is because while he’s rich, the way he speaks is “working class”.
He’s a good example of the difference we’re talking about.
He is not all that much how actual working class behaves. Instead, he is his how middle class imagines working class. And people who vote him are economically not the poorest either. And he is also what poor people imagine super rich to be.
Your statement, worded differently, seems to read "it's high class in low class circles". Are you implying class is only appropriately defined only by those in high-class? I guess I was looking at it as social prestige regardless of who in the social strata assigns it. In other words, if enough 'low-class' people think you're high-class, you're by definition high-class.
"low-class" people would not determine who is "high-class" any more than the "high-class" people determine who is "low-class".
I remeber my cousin who went to UMIST saying this and that side of the family was well off.
Its even more noticeable if you went to oxbridge and bumped into some one like Borris Johnson and his Bullingdon mates.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class:_A_Guide_Through_the_Ame...
I noticed it when I moved to the Bay Area after growing up in western New York. The types of foods people ate or didn’t eat, the restaurants people would or would not go to.
The shows people would or would not watch, even the way people talked. I think I hadn’t really seen the difference in class behavior before in America. Now it’s easy to see it.
A lot of it is tightly correlated to wealth and a lot of it reminds me of things the author describes (fear of not being able to find a job, fear of just “taking a year off” because it sounds financially crazy), but it’s not only about wealth really.
You can be poor and still act more “upper class” and you can be rich and still act “working class”. It’s a lot of little things people do in preferences and how they talk/behave.