Imagine if Black or Muslim Americans had voted for an equivalently extreme candidate
Image: Jamelle Boule
The South African comedian Trevor Noah, now presenter of The Daily Show in the U.S, used to do a sketch about when he first got to the US.
He remarked how he thought it was funny how Americans were all put into racial groups. That you had ‘Black Americans’, ‘Hispanic Americans’ you even had the native Indian populations called ‘Native Americans’ apart from one: white people — they were lucky enough to be just ‘Americans’.
In the aftermath of this shocking US Presidential Election, we can see the above observation being reflected in how the election result is being reported and explained.
We have heard that the ‘black American’ vote was down, that the ‘Hispanic American’ vote was not solidly for Clinton, but these are ridiculous explanations of the results.
The Black American vote was an incredible 88 per cent behind Clinton and the Hispanic community turned out in record numbers giving Clinton a win in Nevada and coming close to helping her win in victory in Florida, even though in 2000 44 per cent of this group voted Republican.
The next explanation is to segment by wealth, blaming the ‘blue collar American’ for turning to Trump. This analysis works on the basic level that ‘blue collar’ non-college educated white workers did vote more for Trump, but kindly forgets that so did college educated white American and also, neatly forgets the analysis that the average Trump was far richer than the average American.
No, let us be frank:
If we divide America into racial subgroups, only one group voted overwhelmingly for Trump, and that was the ‘White American’ — with a margin of over twenty per cent (58 per cent voting for Trump and only 37 per cent for Clinton). In every other racial grouping, it was the reverse, by at least a ratio of two to one, they voted for Clinton.
Why is it important to state it so frankly? Well, just flip it around. Imagine a black candidate or, even better, a Muslim candidate ran for the Presidency and in the run-up to the vote this candidate stated that white people were rapists and murderers or were all on drugs. Imagine if, after a white supremacist’s mass killing, he said that all white people should be banned from entering the USA indefinitely.
Now, imagine further, when the results came in the analysis found that the Black or Muslim population had overwhelmingly voted for him. Just imagine the outcry, imagine the call for the community to do some ‘soul-searching’ about keeping to the American virtues of tolerance and respect for other communities.
Well, it is only natural to ask the ‘White American’ to spend some time soul searching as to how, as a group, they voted for someone who was so outrageously racist as to be reason enough to disqualify him for inciting racial hatred.
Is there something central to how this group sees themselves as the real ‘Americans’, to return to Trevor Noah’s analogy, that allows someone to offend every other race so badly and still be electable?
Ranjit Sidhu is is the founder of SiD, Statistics into Decisions. Follow him on Twitter.
See also: Angela Merkel shames Theresa May with message for next US president
22 Responses to “Only one racial sub-group voted for Trump – White Americans must do some soul searching”
Mick
“Mick , do you like maths?”
Muslims didn’t invent Maths, nor is algebra a credit to Islam. Mathematicians of the Muslim faith refined mathswork.
Islam is a SIDE ISSUE. Wherever Muslim civilisations are touted, they were either in countries raped by jihad – where only Muslims enjoyed first class citizen status – or simply do not exist.
Most of the things lefties and Muslims say were invented by Muslims WERE NOT.
Mick
PS – FIRST CLASS comment, Mr. Walker!
Also, Muslim states crush or herald new tyrannies, as late as the so-called Arab Spring. These are brutal, faith-based dictatorships based directly on Muhammad’s teachings. The Sharia.
That’s WAY different to the Church of the Christians. Except Catholocism, which was a Roman imperial invention.
Ranjit Sidhu
thank you, Micheal for understanding and explaining the point better then I could. As Micheal clear; point out:
1 . “Muslim world did great things”
and
2. “merging state and church together just proved over centuries it does not provide stable Government.” Oh dear: UK, what were you thinking of?
Thank you for your comment Micheal. Have a great day.
Mick
1. No, the Muslim world was and is a brutal tyranny, where Christians are still executed for their faith like that woman in Pakistan.
Thank you for showing your true colours for liking all that.
2. I never said either of those things anyway. Re-read the comments.
As Mr. Walker said, you don’t love Nazi Germany becaue it gave us rockets, do you ??
Or, do you???
Michael WALKER
>Micj
You are being unfair.
Every Government – or virtually all before the 19th century – – were nasty, brutal and reigned with the use of fear of the use of force, or by the use of force. (We had various people killed in riots up to the 19th century just for supporting universal sufferage,.
And the Western World was even more brutal in its wars in the 20th century with killing on a scale unmatched by any tyrant – and not just once – but twice in half a century.