Die Auswirkungen friedlicher bzw nichtfriedlicher Demonstrationen in Bezug auf das Wahlverhalten und Fragile Whiteness

Eine interessante Studie hat sich der Frage angenommen, wie sich Demonstrationen auf das Wahlverhalten auswirkten:

How do stigmatized minorities advance agendas when confronted with hostile majorities? Elite theories of influence posit marginal groups exert little power. I propose the concept of agenda seeding to describe how activists use methods like disruption to capture the attention of media and overcome political asymmetries. Further, I hypothesize protest tactics influence how news organizations frame demands. Evaluating black-led protests between 1960 and 1972, I find nonviolent activism, particularly when met with state or vigilante repression, drove media coverage, framing, Congressional speech and public opinion on civil rights. Counties proximate to nonviolent protests saw presidential Democratic vote share among whites increase 1.3-1.6%. Protester-initiated violence, by contrast, helped move news agendas, frames, elite discourse and public concern toward “social control.” In 1968, using rainfall as an instrument, I find violent protests likely caused a 1.6-7.9% shift among whites towards Republicans and tipped the election. Elites may dominate political communication but hold no monopoly.

Quelle: Agenda Seeding: How 1960s Black Protests Moved Elites, Public
Opinion and Voting

Der Studie nach hätten also friedliche Demonstrationen für die Bürgerrechte von Schwarzen, die unterdrückt worden sind bei den weißen Wählern zu einem Anstieg für die Demokraten um 1,3-1,6% gebracht.
Gewalttätige Proteste hingegen haben eine Veränderung in Höhe von 1,6-7,9% zugunsten der Republikaner bewirkt.

Wer Gewalt ausgesetzt ist, der will eben wieder, dass die Ordnung hergestellt wird, ohne Gewalt ist man den Forderungen gegenüber hingegen offener.

Wäre interessant, ob sich das gleiche Bild bei den demnächst in den USA anstehenden Wahlen erneut zeigt. Ich könnte mir schon vorstellen, dass einige Bürger in Seattle nicht gerade froh über „autonome Zonen“ waren oder über Sachbeschädigungen etc.

Ein Tweet über die Studie:

Shor wurde dann wohl direkt von einem Listvers_Server geschmissen, einfach weil man es nicht hinnehmen wollte, dass er die gegenwärtigen Demonstrationen mit dem Hinweis auf die Studie in ein schlechtes Licht rückt. Dann gab es dort Diskussionen dazu

Ein interessanter Artikel dazu:

Shor’s expulsion prompted a heated but heavily one-sided debate. The handful of members who defended Shor were met with reminders that a person who says they were victimized must be believed, and that anybody who questioned the charge needed to undergo self-examination:

I rarely post here, but I think the way this conversation has unfolded has been egregious, and I feel called to name that. I thought this was meant to be a progressive space. Many of us are not acting like it. I’m really disappointed to see so many people here reacting to defend a white man who was being held accountable for his actions, and prioritizing that over the harm he did to a queer person of color.

To all the BIPOC and especially Black folks reading this, you deserve better than how this space is behaving. To my fellow white people: If you find yourself leaping to defend a white person when they’ve been called in for doing something racist, notice that impulse, and then SLOW DOWN. Stop. Sit down and breathe and feel your feelings, take a really close look at what you’re doing and why. Find another white person who is an appropriate person to help you process them. (I am willing to do that for a few folks! Email me directly.) Find a different, more constructive action. Keep breathing. Black lives matter, Black safety matters, Black mental health matters, Black emotions matter.
This is a condensed version of the procedures laid out by writers such as Robin DiAngelo. Indeed, one member helpfully quoted a passage from White Fragility:

In all of this, please consider the very real impacts of your words and defensiveness on the BIPOC members of our progressphiles community. Instead of invalidating their perspectives, this is a great opportunity to listen and learn more about the challenges they face being in the progressive data space. I hear outrage on behalf of the person who was removed from the list, but less outrage that people in our community felt unsafe because of harassment from another person in our community. If you must take issue with the moderators’ decision, I would recommend you communicate that privately with the moderators. I offer some words from Robin DiAngelo from her book “White Fragility,” a book I would highly recommend to my fellow white progressphiles members as a great learning tool:

“If you are white and have ever been challenged to look at your own racism ­— perhaps you told a problematic joke or made a prejudiced assumption and someone brought it to your attention­ — it is common to feel defensive. If you believe that you are being told you are a bad person, all your energy is likely to go toward denying this possibility and invalidating the messenger rather than trying to understand why what you’ve said or done is hurtful. You will probably respond with white fragility. But unfortunately, white fragility can only protect the problematic behavior you feel so defensive about; it does not demonstrate that you are an open person who has no problematic racial behavior.”

Da scheinen Leute wirklich dran zu glauben, dabei ist es erkennbar eine Theorie, die weit eher einen Glauben bedient als wirkliche Feststellungen macht. In der Welt muss man rassistisch sein und jeder Widerstand dagegen ist gleichzeitig der Beweis, wie rassistisch man ist. Was für ein Mist.

Indeed, one member described the citation of Wasow’s paper not as an effort to inform or persuade but as an attempt to “dictate” the behavior of people of color:

We need to recognize the role data plays in this conversation. Using it to dictate how BIPOC should feel and protest is harmful.

Das ist auch so ein Klassiker. Es ist eben berechtigter Zorn, einfach weil sie eine Minderheit sind und das hat man nicht zu regulieren, sondern nur zu verstehen.

Another member compared Wasow’s research to phrenology and other forms of pseudoscience:

I’d like to be heard. I have been following along with these posts all day and I’m exhausted. I was working and wanted to offer my thoughts now that my day has died down. I’ve been in progressive spaces since 2006, and it didn’t take long for me to understand that in our spaces, racism isn’t always loud. It isn’t always brash or demanding, spewing racial slurs with a foaming tongue. Sometimes it’s quiet; steeped in seemingly innocuous data and facts. Racism can wrap itself in the trappings of credible logic and I swear it can make sense. But when you see how data can and has been used to oppress, undermine and devalue movements, it’s impossible not to offer a critical eye. The context to anything is everything. Just because it was written by a “type of person,” or has a decimal point means nothing. The right to question and criticize works, is the reason why people all over the world have to defend their academic work to be considered a scholar.

We have seen scientific racism from the 1600’s until the late 1960’s (in theory) ushered in at every level ­— wrapped in empirical pieces of evidence ­— that prove genetic inferiority to white people. Skull measurements used to prove that blacks’ brains weren’t as large as white brains. I’m sure that at the time no one would have thought twice about the veracity of the claims. When you are a member of the offended group, it is damn near impossible to speak up to voice any complaint, to this logic. Those who address it are often attacked and threatened. When you find someone brave enough to say, “I’ll do it, I’ll speak up,” when they know what’s about to go down, AND they do it anyway, all I can say is … Thank you.

Please for the love of all the babies, stop telling people how to process their own oppression and the offense that comes alongside it. That is not allyship, that’s quiet and polite intellectual racism.

Der Autor schreibt dazu:

The premise that “allyship” prohibits the questioning of any charge of racism is a common one. Not only is the rigor of Wasow’s research no defense, neither is the fact that he is also Black, which is dismissed as a “my best friend is Black” form of tokenism:

Ein Ally hat niemals Protest in irgendwelcher Form zu kritisieren, sondern eben nur zu unterstützen. Und seine Meinung darf er eben auch nicht auf „Beliebige Schwarze“ (wie hier den Autor der Studie) stützen, sondern auf die richtigen, die die protestieren und Leuten Rassismus vorwerfen.

Ich fand den Artikel ganz interessant, weil er so viele klassische Muster hat. Akzeptiere! Maße dir kein Urteil an, welches von der Meinung abweicht, dass Weiße alles machen müssen um den Rassismus zu beenden an dem sie Schuld sind und Schwarze demonstrieren können wie sie wollen.

Das gleiche gibt es auch in der Geschlechterdebatte, es ist dann ja nur eine andere Kategorie für die die gleichen Grundsätze gelten. Auch dort gibt es genug Artikel über „Ton Policing“ und das eine Frau eben zu Recht sauer ist und es Frauenfeindlich ist, wenn man es nicht gut findet, wenn sie sich wie die Axt im Walde aufführt.