<p>During a stroll in NYC, my dad and I walked through an ok but not good neighborhood. Interestingly, my dad told me to hold my head high and don’t look at the other people.</p>
<p>It kinda of got me to think that maybe classism is becoming strong, especially in the suburbs. In the suburbs, EVERYONE in your neighborhood is within your social status. It’s hard to be racist towards an African American when he can afford the same house you are living in ( after all, if u believe u are superior, how is he in your tax bracket?). </p>
<p>I guess I’m asking does anyone else feeling that classism is replacing racism? With the NAACP losing relavance and the income between rich and poor widening, classism definitely seems more plausible.</p>
<p>I don’t think the classes understand each other very well. And it goes both ways. I can’t fathom someone who makes $200,000 per year considering themselves “middle class,” but then again, they think that just “hard work” will lift the poor out of poverty. Classism is definitely a growing problem.</p>
<p>Yeah. When u see an African American or Latino kid living in your neighborhood, you shrug and try to make friends with them. </p>
<p>When u see a white kid running around in the slums, you naturally look down on them. People judge harshly the people below them but resist that urge when dealing with people of their own status or above.</p>
<p>Well first off, (speaking as an African American and inner-city low income), I don’t think that racism is exactly fading away as fast as we all wished it would and thus, the NAACP is not losing relevance. It’s just adopting to new forms of racism; racism that’s cast in the shadows of american society. Just because we don’t see people with white hoods and pitch forks out to grab every person of color walking on the street anymore, it doesn’t mean that it still doesn’t exist. The NAACP is still an active institution in DC and as far as I know, it has done a rather good job protecting minority rights when litigating and lobbying over the past 20 years, not exempting its role in the civil rights era. And I don’t believe whites considered themselves superior to African Americans because of their money, but because of their skin color(white-better, black-not so much … that was the basis); poor whites in the rural south considered themselves better than well-off blacks even though they had dirt. </p>
<p>Yes, I definitely do believe classism is starting to really “Boom.” Hey OP, why did your father tell you to do that? I don’t understand the reasoning behind that …</p>
<p>and The Great Gatsby =]
Yeah I agree, it’s always been there. But it just seems that people are choosing to be more “opulent” with their money … maybe it’s because we’re growing up and entering the real world that we notice these things even more …</p>
<p>No flaming please - I’m trying to kick start a thoughtful discussion with a contrarian view.</p>
<p>Does classism exist? I suppose it must given the above posts.</p>
<p>Is Jason’s dad, classist, as Jason seems to imply? Solely based upon the anecdote in the OP, I hesitate to conclude that. Self-preservation is not a vice and the more experienced father may, in this instance, have better and more appropriate instincts than an idealistic child. That is especially so in the current urban climate (including NYC) where crime rates are bouncing off their lows; these places are more dangerous, relatively speaking, than in recent years.</p>
<p>Is classism the same as racism? Of course not. The racist believes a person to be inferior on the basis of genetics. The classist is not basing an opinion on genetics. That doesn’t necessarily make it right, but it sure makes it different. So in order to have a thoughtful conversation about classism, how does one define it, or does it remain a term elusively defined, yet pejorative?</p>
<p>Is classism, however defined, a “growing problem”? Well, that assumes it’s a “problem” to begin with. It may be, but it’s certainly a different kind of problem than enslaving Africans, murdering Jews, or bashing homosexuals. I wonder what, precisely, the “problem” is? Are employers declining to interview applicants based upon class? How are employers determining class in making these decisions? Are colleges rejecting applicants based upon class (or are they discriminating against upper class applicants)?</p>
<p>Why must there be an “ism” attached to being vigilant about one’s personal safety in an “ok but not good neighborhood”? If the neighborhood has a high crime rate, if robbery, muggings, etc., occur there in high numbers, then it would seem that the vigilance is called upon based upon a rational understanding of one’s vulnerabilities in that neighborhood, rather than the socio-economic conditions of its occupants. Does this mean everyone there is a potential mugger? Of course not. But some neighborhoods are more dangerous than others. All of us, when our children are widening their roaming distances, give cautious warnings about this area or that area, warnings based on our knowledge of crime rates. Must we check our common sense at the door so as not to appear guilty of the latest “ism”?</p>
<p>*Hey OP, why did your father tell you to do that? I don’t understand the reasoning behind that … *</p>
<p>As a woman with red hair ( which seems to be a magnet for some men) and who looks younger than I am ( although a lot of that I think is because I am smallish), I have learned over time to not look directly at people I perceive to be less stable.</p>
<p>People who are unstable can be set off if you look at them directly, and some men even if not " crazy", take a direct look especially when combined with casual conversation about the weather while waiting for a street light as an open invitation to accompany you for blocks. However, these traits are not limited to a certain class or neighborhood.</p>
<p>While some people feel that economic indicators are a measure of a persons worth/intelligence, those people are generally insecure as to their own " social standing" and make poor judgments in other areas as well.</p>
<p>May I ask when has class not been a contentious social issue? Did the “wealthier” farmers not look down on the “lowly” hunter-gatherers? What about those fabulous pharaohs claiming “divine origin” while owning “heathen” Hebrew slaves? I think a wise wealthy lady summed it up nicely when she expressed “let them eat cake” and a few months later it was “off with her head.”</p>
<p>35 years ago I remember sitting in a college class and hearing this from my professor: </p>
<p>“Feeling superior to someone of a different skin color is not racism, it is elitism. Feeling threatened/angered by someone of a different skin color because they are a higher social class than you is racism” He went on to say the lowest social class (In 1976) was the “white trash” male who felt hatred toward black men because they did not like being of a lower social class.</p>
<p>I found his comments thought provoking.</p>
<p>I believe that racism exists. I also believe that ignorance exists and that it can also cause pain.</p>
<p>My dad told me to act as i did because i think out of upper middle class pride or something. He occasionally tells me classist things like how I should not associate with those from poorer backgrounds because there is nothing to be gained??? I guess he has a point because was actually poor growing up but then he went to college. He was first generation. But he looks down at the same kind of people who might eventually attain social mobility like him. I find it exquisitely interesting.</p>
<p>Let me clarify that the neighborhood I was in was not exactly a project. It was just barely white majority. Median income (if i had to guess) is probably around 15,000$ a household. Its a lot better than the projects but its no nice white collared suburb. We missed a few subway stops because we were both on phones.</p>
<p>Classism is not like racism at all. Race is an immutable characteristic. “Class” on the other hand in our society can either go up or down. </p>
<p>And I don’t define “class” by how much money a person has. A person making a modest income could be ‘high’ class by being highly educated, well-spoken and intelligent. A mobster with a lot of money will never be ‘high’ class.</p>
<p>So no, classism is not the new racism. There are very valid reasons to prefer a ‘high’ class person, as I’ve defined it, to a ‘low’ class person.</p>
<p>Here are what my family consider the borderlines.</p>
<p>Bottom quintile: Lower class
2nd quintile: lower middle class
3rd quintile: middle class
4th quintile: middle- professional class
top quintile: upper middle class
top 1%: upper class</p>
<p>The rich in the USA has traditionally been defined as those either with large family estates or the top 1% of tax payers. Luckily, there is significant overlap so we will just say top 1%.</p>
<p>I think 200,000$ is upper middle class, leaning onwards to the upper class. The cut off for top 1% is around 250k to 300k, figures vary depending on which source you use. Top 1.5% in 2005 was $250,000. Since the economy sucks as of current, we will say top 1% is around 250,000 lol.</p>
<p>And when i say class, i am referring to social status. For example, a mobster would obviously not be included in any class per se. Someone of the upper class does not need to be educated, “clean,” kind, or whatever references the last poster on the first page said. We are not using the “classy” definition of class.</p>
<p>Oh, classism definitely exists and it goes both ways</p>
<p>As someone who’s family has been on welfare/unemployment and other government programs, I’m astounded by the people who claim people on such programs “live large”. If you need such programs, you AREN’T doing so well. You have basically nothing and are just trying to scrape by.</p>
<p>At the same time, I know plenty of poorer people who resent/dislike “uppity” wealthier people and view them as snobs even if they aren’t really snobs. These wealthier people have often worked very hard and might have even come from bad backgrounds</p>
<p>Both sides have a problem of trying to relate to each other</p>