Awaiting Trump's coal comeback, miners reject retraining

[JA]

I have empathy for their situation. Not the deplorable way they respond to it.

Why would it matter anyway? These people supposedly hate special snowflakes and easily triggered politically correct liberals. Can dish it out but can't take it? I'm just "telling it like it is", the very quality they love about Trump.

I agree with you. I’m tired of the pussy footing and skating around that we do when it comes to uneducated white people because we can’t hurt their feelings. They have no problem getting in the gutter and expressing their disgust with affirmative action, Hispanic immigration, same-sex marriage, or any other policy that don’t like but they can’t handle the truth about an industry that is basically a ing death sentence. Stop trying to pander to ignorant people and tell them the truth.

The more I read posts from liberals like this the more I think leaving the Democratic Party was a good choice.

Same. I'm still awaiting my new voter registration card in the mail after leaving the party. I don't want to be associated with those people. Same mindset as you'd imagine a liberal Republican to possess; no thanks.

I sympathize a lot with these coal miners. Not only were they sold the myth that coal jobs would return, but even if they didn't believe that what other options are truly viable for them? Yes, this one man in the article is 33, but what about the rest of the coal miners who're rejecting retraining? Making such a transition simply isn't easy, especially when you likely come from a long line of coal miners, you recognize that coal mining is the only decent paying job in your community, and you probably don't know anyone in or anything about these new fields. And if there are no jobs to be found in your local area, what're you supposed to do? Uproot yourself from a community in which your family may have lived for generations? Try to sell your home (good luck) and relocate to a costlier urban area? And not to mention the limited or total lack of income obtainable during retraining, which makes providing for a family incredibly difficult.

To just shout at them: "do this or you deserve to suffer!" Is no different whatsoever from the standard right-wing mantras of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and "quit being lazy." It takes absolutely no consideration of the human condition, of the psychology behind their individual circumstances, the complexity of their situation, and the fact that this crisis has been caused by avoidable factors that are ultimately traceable back to the careless exploitation and disregard of significant segments of America (geographically and socially). What's been done to Appalachia is hardly different than what has happened to inner cities and the Rust Belt; they faced rapid growth, mass industrial exploitation, then the industries became increasingly automated and subjected to pressure from low-wage foreign competition, and then no level of the US government has taken accountability for the mass crises these policies create and inflict upon its citizens. Instead, the blame is shifted onto the individuals involved, as if all of these people had any say whatsoever in how these industries functioned, how automation occurred, where investment would go, or anything.

And now, when they're already suffering from declining life expectancy, surging mortality rates, drug addiction, alcoholism, chronic and intergenerational poverty, and the sting of austerity, deregulation, and diminishing social welfare programs, the response from the better-off parts of America are condescension at best, and visceral hatred at worst. Anyone who blames these individuals is falling for the right-wing myth of "personal accountability" and "individual responsibility," which hardly applies to this situation at all. Why not just go shout at the homeless that their condition is all their fault or tell folks in blighted neighborhoods that their poverty is a failure of their families? It's literally no different, except maybe these people are branded in the liberal imagination with a scarlet T because they belong to the "wrong party."

[JA]

In the early 20th century, when industrial growth and agricultural changes had made the grand country estates of the British nobility unsustainable, what did the former tenants and servants of those aristocratic households do? They moved to the cities and got different jobs.

What did farmers in Oklahoma do when the Dust Bowl made it impossible to continue farming their lands? They moved elsewhere - often to California, which was a whole world away back then.

I don't understand why we've come to this idea that people should be bound to their land and that moving even a few hours drive away is a completely heartless and unacceptable proposition, when that is literally what Americans have done for hundreds of years.

So, simply because that's how something was done in the past, that's how things should be done in the present and future? I'm not against retraining these folks into other areas; I'm 100% against the continuation of coal's usage in any form. Even the most radical of Democratic environmental policies are too weak, in my opinion. But you can't simply uproot people, displace them from their communities, and toss them into financial insecurity simply because "muh market." F*** the market and f*** anyone who thinks we, as humans, in a society as complex and sophisticated as ours, should have to be slaves to an "invisible hand," which is nothing more than private, wealthy investors, stockholders, financial "experts," and corporations calling the shots while we all just have to stand-by and watch as they dictate our lives to us. We, as humans, should control our destiny; each of us as individuals, not have some wealthy people scattered across the country and globe decide winners and losers, pick and choose where investments will go, whose community will face ruin next, whose job will be lost next, which law should be passed, whose views will be express on TV news.

[JA]

In the early 20th century, when industrial growth and agricultural changes had made the grand country estates of the British nobility unsustainable, what did the former tenants and servants of those aristocratic households do? They moved to the cities and got different jobs.

What did farmers in Oklahoma do when the Dust Bowl made it impossible to continue farming their lands? They moved elsewhere - often to California, which was a whole world away back then.

I don't understand why we've come to this idea that people should be bound to their land and that moving even a few hours drive away is a completely heartless and unacceptable proposition, when that is literally what Americans have done for hundreds of years.

So, simply because that's how something was done in the past, that's how things should be done in the present and future? I'm not against retraining these folks into other areas; I'm 100% against the continuation of coal's usage in any form. Even the most radical of Democratic environmental policies are too weak, in my opinion. But you can't simply uproot people, displace them from their communities, and toss them into financial insecurity simply because "muh market." F*** the market and f*** anyone who thinks we, as humans, in a society as complex and sophisticated as ours, should have to be slaves to an "invisible hand," which is nothing more than private, wealthy investors, stockholders, financial "experts," and corporations calling the shots while we all just have to stand-by and watch as they dictate our lives to us. We, as humans, should control our destiny; each of us as individuals, not have some wealthy people scattered across the country and globe decide winners and losers, pick and choose where investments will go, whose community will face ruin next, whose job will be lost next, which law should be passed, whose views will be express on TV news.

So refusing to train for a new job and refusing to move and blaming everyone else is what passes for controlling one's destiny nowadays?

You yourself oppose them continuing to mine coal because of the environmental effects. But you don't think they should have to move. And you don't think they should have to train for new jobs.

So what is your plan? Does this 33 year old get to collect a pension for 60+ years? Are the rest of us expected to pay for that? Including those of us who have moved for work and who have changed careers before?

I'd like to know where I said they shouldn't retrain for a different career. If my position is in favor of the abolition of coal usage, then obviously all workers within that field under a certain age (there's no particular limit, but let's say 55) should be retrained. My complaint is against (1) the way retraining is currently done in the US since it should include better social and financial support for individuals and communities, (2) the fact that after retraining many/most workers will have to relocate from their current local areas, and (3) the market is still in control of these factors. For example, rather than force coal miners who largely live in Appalachia from having to leave an area that the coal industry, along with the support of the US government, used as a base of extraction and industrial growth, thereby attracting most of the ancestors of the existing population, the government should conduct massive expansion of investment into the area to focus on tapping into its green energy potential, new infrastructure projects, social work projects to tackle the social crisis in the area, and support the growth of local and small businesses throughout Appalachia (the same applies to all suffering areas).

The people and the environment should be put first; the people, through their democratically elected government and empowered personal choices, should be in total control of their local environment and economy and, by extension, their destiny. It's not about paying anyone to "lay around;" it's about mitigating the harmful effects of a financialized market economy that has no regard for environmental impacts or the consequences for human lives. Give the power back to the people, where it belongs, and these people in Appalachia (and elsewhere) will have much better lives. Don't just throw them to the heartless, profit-oriented market and abandon them when the winds of profit change.

[JA]

American liberals are truly awful.

It's disorienting to read ostensibly left-leaning people sh**tting on coal miners for not getting on their bike and looking for work as if they're Norman Tebbit.  

It's even more disorienting to see maroon avatars only come out of the woodwork when the topic is about the plight of poor white men.

There are pretty of maroon avatars that criticise conservatives about the plight of poor minority groups across the country, it's only the fact that now maroon avatars have to criticise Thatcherite neo-liberals on the plight of the rural white poor.

I don't think IceSpear is even cognizant of the motivation behind our position on this issue or why we so much detest his position. He genuinely sees himself as being on the true left side which, from his perspective, I can somewhat understand. But he's mistaken though.

IceSpear is highlighting and strongly rebuking what he perceives as the rampant racism among the White working-class that motivate them to vote for right-wing, racist politicians like Donald Trump due to cultural/racial grievances. He's not entirely incorrect on this issue. There is a significant element of racism that motivates many within the White working-class. IceSpear is also correct in noting the structural inequalities of White privilege and how even the White poor have particular (relative) benefits when compared to, for example, the African American poor.

However, what IceSpear gets wrong is that he (a) is basing his understanding of White working-class motivations on voting results, which isn't an accurate depiction of this demographic group since it has low turnout levels due to alienation among large swaths of these Americans. Bigots are simply more motivated to vote than non-bigots, especially when those non-bigots simply see both parties as corrupt and voting pointless since it won't help their families. He also seems to (it's implied in his posts) believe that (b) the White working-class is more bigoted than other Whites in America, which is simply not true based on Psychological studies. IceSpear also assumes that (c) White privilege provides the White poor and working-classes with some substantially greater position over minorities in the same socioeconomic position, which allows him to disparage them in a way that he would never when discussing minorities. And he also seems to believe that (d) those of us on the Left are supporting White privilege by focusing on White working-class persons.

Let me tell you that we aren't focusing on the White working-class due to them being White. We're doing it because we notice the exceptional hostility directed towards these folks and we perceive them as a disempowered, disadvantaged group being attacked by a more powerful, wealthier group. We prioritize class-based issues since that's the primary center of power in our society - class status. Race, gender, sexuality, and so on are unquestionably important, but it's class that's the most significant of these intersectional systems of power. That's not to downplay the importance of things like institutional racism since they need to be addressed immediately, but we want to see the focus placed on all of the working class when discussing economic issues and the plight of the poor and working class. Dividing up the working class, whether through White racism or attacks upon Whites, isn't going to unify us along class lines against the mutual enemy of all workers, the ones who benefit from division - the upper class. So long as the workers remain divided, they're easy to exploit.

[JA]

American liberals are truly awful.

It's disorienting to read ostensibly left-leaning people sh**tting on coal miners for not getting on their bike and looking for work as if they're Norman Tebbit.  

It's even more disorienting to see maroon avatars only come out of the woodwork when the topic is about the plight of poor white men.

There are pretty of maroon avatars that criticise conservatives about the plight of poor minority groups across the country, it's only the fact that now maroon avatars have to criticise Thatcherite neo-liberals on the plight of the rural white poor.

I don't think IceSpear is even cognizant of the motivation behind our position on this issue or why we so much detest his position. He genuinely sees himself as being on the true left side which, from his perspective, I can somewhat understand. But he's mistaken though.

IceSpear is highlighting and strongly rebuking what he perceives as the rampant racism among the White working-class that motivate them to vote for right-wing, racist politicians like Donald Trump due to cultural/racial grievances. He's not entirely incorrect on this issue. There is a significant element of racism that motivates many within the White working-class. IceSpear is also correct in noting the structural inequalities of White privilege and how even the White poor have particular (relative) benefits when compared to, for example, the African American poor.

However, what IceSpear gets wrong is that he (a) is basing his understanding of White working-class motivations on voting results, which isn't an accurate depiction of this demographic group since it has low turnout levels due to alienation among large swaths of these Americans. Bigots are simply more motivated to vote than non-bigots, especially when those non-bigots simply see both parties as corrupt and voting pointless since it won't help their families. He also seems to (it's implied in his posts) believe that (b) the White working-class is more bigoted than other Whites in America, which is simply not true based on Psychological studies. IceSpear also assumes that (c) White privilege provides the White poor and working-classes with some substantially greater position over minorities in the same socioeconomic position, which allows him to disparage them in a way that he would never when discussing minorities. And he also seems to believe that (d) those of us on the Left are supporting White privilege by focusing on White working-class persons.

Let me tell you that we aren't focusing on the White working-class due to them being White. We're doing it because we notice the exceptional hostility directed towards these folks and we perceive them as a disempowered, disadvantaged group being attacked by a more powerful, wealthier group. We prioritize class-based issues since that's the primary center of power in our society - class status. Race, gender, sexuality, and so on are unquestionably important, but it's class that's the most significant of these intersectional systems of power. That's not to downplay the importance of things like institutional racism since they need to be addressed immediately, but we want to see the focus placed on all of the working class when discussing economic issues and the plight of the poor and working class. Dividing up the working class, whether through White racism or attacks upon Whites, isn't going to unify us along class lines against the mutual enemy of all workers, the ones who benefit from division - the upper class. So long as the workers remain divided, they're easy to exploit.

I must say, between this thread and the other one, you make very cogent arguments.

As for point C, I don't disparage them because they have white privilege. I do so because many of them frequently disparage poor minorities that they SHOULD have empathy for (welfare queens, takers, leeches, etc.)

Point D, it's not so much the left only, but the disproportionate attention they get among the entire political spectrum.

I agree with you that ideally people would vote based on their actual interests. But with the GOP continuing to transition into a white identity politics/racial grievance party with every passing day, I don't see that happening anytime soon. If anything the gap is only going to continue to widen.

Yes, they should absolutely have more empathy for their fellow Americans, especially the ones who’re suffering from similar economic conditions. But again, bigots are more likely to vote than non-bigots among the low turnout White working class, which skews the representation and image of their group disproportionately in favor of the bigots. There’s absolutely no strong social scientific evidence that demonstrates higher levels of racism among Whites without a college degree or the White working class. It’s also important to note the role our social system, which creates and enforced class divisions, also created and continues to enforce racial division. Race is a social construct; it never benefited the White poor or working class, nor did they create it. There have been a lot of race riots aimed at African Americans due to economic insecurity; it’s the same issue we see with the right-wing targeting immigrants. “They take our jobs, they’re lazy, they lower wages, they’re blah blah blah,” yet where’s the accountability of the employers who’ve exploited minority laborers for greater profit? The impoverished tenant farmers in the South didn’t benefit from slavery, nor did the laborers in the North, yet those poor Southerners were drafted to fight while slave owners could be exempted. It damn sure wasn’t the poor who owned slaves. It was a class issue.

It’s still about class today and the rightwing exploits fear of “the other” so that people stay focused on those even worse off while they pick their pockets. Sure, some people will always hate and that’s that; but many/most are motivated by more important issues than hatred, and that’s what we need to tap into. Most working class Whites don’t even vote; just imagine what we could do if we motivated them to turn out for us by appealing to their basic interests. Ever notice how higher turnout almost always correlated with better Democratic performance? It’s all about the turnout; we win when we motivate Americans to show up.