Lisa Pruitt, a law professor at the University of California at Davis, studies the intersection of law and rural livelihoods. She also runs a site called the Legal Ruralism Blog, where she writes about the problem of rural American poverty. Pruitt grew up in a working-class rural Newton County in the Ozarks of northwest Arkansas. She tells Rural America In These Times that one important misconception about rural poverty is that it is an exclusively white problem. While the majority of rural Americans struggling with poverty are white, Pruitt says, the racial makeup of the rural poor is far more diverse than the image most Americans realize.

“We tend to associate rural poverty with whiteness,” Pruitt says. “When we think about rural poverty, most associations with rural poverty are with white populations and in fact, that is true to some extent but it’s actually far from being monochromatic.”

The demographics of poverty in rural and urban America are quite similar. Though whites make up the majority of both metropolitan and non-metropolitan populations in the United States—resulting in a higher numbers of whites living in poverty—poverty rates throughout rural America are much higher among the rural minority population. According to the 2013 American Community Survey, 40 percent of blacks living in non-metro counties fall below the poverty line, compared to 15 percent of whites. Poverty rates among non-metro Hispanics and American Indians are also considerably higher than they are among whites.

This popular association between rural American poverty and whiteness is key to understanding why the media, and liberal America as a whole, doesn’t talk about rural American poverty. While black poverty in the United States is attributed to the legacies of slavery, Jim Crow, housing discrimination, incarceration, and other forms of institutionalized racism, we have no national narrative that explains white poverty. As a result, there is an implicit belief that whites—who have benefited from all of the advantages that come with being white—don’t have a good reason to be poor. In other words, that when whites live in poverty, it is their fault, or even their choice.

Last edited Mon Oct 26, 2015, 11:18 PM - Edit history (1)

did quite well in Appalachia when he ran..considering. He went out there and talked to them and championed their issues.

Problem is you can't get to any of the candidates, including Bernie Sanders, to give them some ideas about how to convert these people. They are like everyone else...they want jobs and a way to take care of their families. They only know coal. It's up to our side to educate them about other issues.

I wrote a lengthy pleas to Dem candidates with ideas about how to address some of their concerns but couldn't any place to send the info. Every time I logged on to one of our candidates sites to offer up some suggestions I was faced with a donation request and couldn't get any further.

All of our candidates would do well to put up a site where suggestion could be received without having to contribute money...some folks have great ideas but no money.

I grew up in coal country (Buchanan County, VA), and in the late 80's to early 90's, our democratic leaders started watching their pensions and investments more than the problems of the folks who elected them. 'Strong Labor' slowly slithered over to 'Economic Opportunity'-- meaning let's go Wall Street.

Clinton and NAFTA were the cherry on top of that shit cake.

"I'm not going to do anything for you. With all your privilege you have no excuse for being poor"
And
"I'm not going to help you... And your problems are those people's fault."
People are likely to choose the latter.

Especially since it's been on the rise during the current administration.

was the day John Edwards was forced to drop out.

Yes, it was horrible that he cheated on Elizabeth, but that is THEIR business....not ours.


If cheating on the wife was grounds for disqualifying Democrats,
then what about Kennedy, FDR, and many others.

Since WHEN have Democrats cared about this shit?
NEVER....until John Edwards.

Do those here who hate John Edwards also hate JFK?
No. It was OK then.

It is the Dean Scream played all over again, but this time with a honey trap.

How DARE Edwards mention The Poor.

I am not looking for a wife or husband.
I am not looking for a new BFF.
I don't even have to "like" him or her, as long as they fight for the Working Class & Poor.

I want a Hard Assed Junk Yard Dog to represent ME.
John Edwards proved he would do this during his Law career,
but got Dean Screamed out of the campaign.

I couldn't care less about their personal lives.

because Elizabeth Edwards was a beloved DUer.

but THAT was between Elizabeth and John.
It was NONE of our business.

Did you feel the same way about Bill Clinton when he cheated on Hillary?

I didn't, and neither did most of the Democratic Party.
How can we give Bill a Free Ride, but drum Edwards and his Two Americas campaign out of the race?

Do you hold JFKs well known infidelities against him?
I don't, and don't know of a single Democrat who does...
so why persecute Edwards for the same personal problem.


Yes. I read Elizabeth's posts here,
and it broke my heart...but THAT was THEIR business....not ours.


If never cheating on the wife becomes a pre-requisite for government service,
then we are in big trouble.

That reeks of hypocrisy.


Like I said above...I do NOT care.
I want a Junk Yard Dog who NEVER lets go fighting for MY poor Working Class Ass. That is ALL, and more than enough.
I don't have to like the person I vote for.
I do NOT want a new BFF or or a new wife for the president.
I may not even want him/her to visit my house.
I can intensely dislike him,
but if he/she fights for traditional FDR Democratic Values,
he/she will get my enthusiastic vote.

righteous Christian traditional views of marriage 'it's just a part of me, my Deacon Daddy, oh my I can not cross that bridge, marriage is for one man and one woman' he'd weep. That's a liar right there, a hypocrite who simply does not mind creating a fiction about himself at the expense of others.

I don't want a president who bad mouths my family out of faked up piety. How the fuck is that sort of bullshit a Franklin and Eleanor value?

and was elected President in 2008?

A better argument would be that Bill Clinton was worse since he committed HIS in the infidelities in the Oval Office (Our House).

I do not agree that Obama said or did worse, but that's very much not the point, which is that Edwards voted for the IRW and ranted about his sacred view of marriage while having an affair and a kid on the side. Obama did none of that. None of it.

Falling for people who use rhetoric you like about an issue without qualification is not a wise choice in life.

but do consider him a major sleazeball. As is Bill, I guess, but still a damn good President.

It is documented that FDR had a romantic affair with his "traveling" secretary.
Are you willing to throw them in the sleaze bucket too?

edit: and in FDR's case, if what we've all heard about Eleanor is true, she might not have minded that much.

It is still breaking the Marriage Vows.

Hurting one's partner is.

Baby Quinn was born in 2008. John was having the affair while Elizabeth was fighting terminal cancer. That's just the lowest of the low.

that lowlife was presidential material?
never.

even when the initial evidence to the contrary came in. I admit I was hoodwinked and I regret it enormously and have vowed never to be fooled that way again.

although my initial support of him was tempered considerably by his Hillary-like rah-rah pro-war stance.

and I think the affair really just shows him to be human.

But mainly why I don't regret supporting him, was because I was NOT so much supporting HIM as I was supporting his PLATFORM. It's not about the person for me as much as it is about the issues.

And the platform never cheated on its wife.

And what kind of man betrays his wife as she is dying of cancer? If he was honorable he would not have betrayed his wife and you and his other supporters in such a cavalier fashion. What does that say about his character? He had a moral duty to support Elizabeth and the fact that he did not and would not and then blatantly LIED about it says something was deeply wrong with his moral character.

Other politicians have split up from their spouses and done so in an honorable way. John Kerry and his first wife did. Al and Tipper Gore did. That shows the kind of character I want in a president.

Besides, it seems to me that you and I and a lot of other progressives got played by John E. and we were played very cynically. Kerry and Gore are good examples of good character and they are two great men who deserved our vote. John Edwards did not. And he certainly hasn't done anything to prove himself afterwards.

and I could really care less about "character"

That is usually a smoke screen to defend bad policy. George W. Bush was said to have great character, and I guess he IS very charming some times.

John Edward's platform was basically - I care about the poor, I care about the bottom half, the second America. Nobody else was saying that, and after he dropped out the campaign nobody ever said that again. The poor got forgotten.

I do NOT care at all about John Edward's honor or supposed lack of it.

I don't even want to talk about that - at all. The relevant question to me is - what about the policies?

I would rather have a snake, a piece of scum who proposes good policies
than a saint who proposes bad ones.

That's what I supported - not John Edwards, but the "focus on the poor" that it seemed only John Edwards had.

I can never regret supporting a focus on the poor.

Last edited Sun Oct 25, 2015, 09:21 AM - Edit history (1)

but there has to be follow through. "saying" ain't "doing." You can talk til the cows come home. The test is whether or not you actually DO, not SAY.

And I think here at DU, character means a lot. We make a lot of judgments here at DU and we distinguish the good from the bad. The acid test is whether or not we follow through on what we said...

When he wasnt running for president ?

the fact is that his campaign was NOT gaining traction.

Partly, I might blame the debates. I remember watching one of the debates. I took detailed notes. They spent the first hour talking about foreign policy - Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. etc.

Not that that is totally unimportant, but it was NOT in any way shape or form why I supported Edwards.

So, first they kinda bored me to death with inside baseball about Pakistan. Edwards never really got a chance to talk about Two Americas.

I wasn't happy when Edwards dropped out before I even got a chance to vote, but looking at it after the fact, it seems to me that if he had NOT dropped out when he did, that Hillary would have wrapped up the nomination on Super Duper Tuesday. Edwards would have reduced Obama's total by 10-15% and Hillary would have run the table that day and her bandwagon would have been unstoppable then.

Remarks by the President in Conversation on Poverty at Georgetown University it was a 3 day poverty summit

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/12/remarks-president-conversation-poverty-georgetown-university

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-poverty-racial-segregation-became-income-segregation

came on the scene .
.

that phony piece of garbage was a stalking horse and nothing more.

If he'd cheat on his own wife than how could any voter trust him?

Yet with over half of American now living in real poverty,
it's time to get real.

public till all the time....

The most important thing to the right is to do NOTHING for them so they'll be forced to get off their lazy asses and take care of themselves. All for their own good, and that of their children, of course.

The left tends to support NATIONAL, BIG GOVERNMENT programs that address need no matter where a person is. Note that the national school lunch program is left-wing and NATIONAL.

Also note that the national school lunch program is under continued attack by the RIGHT, who are trying to destroy it. All for the nation's good, of course.

This is pretty basic stuff, people. It goes to who we on the left are. If you aren't ashamed of hunger in America and don't feel it is your duty to help people all across our nation and beyond, no matter what color or religion, you are not left, not liberal.

In the cities you can take public transportation. You can go to public health agencies. You might even be able to get public housing.

In the rural areas nope. You have to have a car, with insurance. You have to buy gas. You have to have it fixed. The rent is probably cheaper in the country. Sometimes you can grow some food.

Me I have a little 600 sq ft house that I put together with my own hands when I was younger. Now I really wished I lived in town as it would be easier when I have to go to the doctors. But like a lot of rural people, we get by.

the poor but in my state MN we have created a lot of alternatives for rural poor also. For transportation we have turned the mini-bus system that used to be only for the elderly and disabled into a full fledged bus system. In order to help those living in the country we have used buses from this town based system to serve country clients in different areas on a one day a week system. Our reservation bus system serves all races and has a bus in each area of the reservation.

Most small communities have public housing thanks to HUD. And our Public Health Agencies come to our homes to give services such as home health.

As to food we have the same services as big cities SNAP & WIC

My guess is that one of the reasons that rural states have these kinds of problems has more to do with state legislature than with federal. All too many rural states are still falling all over the R thinking that somehow they are doing a good job.

But what really happens is that the feds enact the service but the state fails to set it up in their area claiming that their country does not need that program (look at all the states who refused to expand Medicaid).

There are poor in rural areas but even when the feds do something to help many never receive the services thanks to their own elected representatives.

for healthy people. City people might have a patchwork of services but country folks have land for gardens. The diets of the country people might be just a hair better and they might not need quite as many of the services that city people in food deserts do. The air is generally better and if they're not dumb enough to smoke, they'll develop a whole host of illnesses far later.

Once health starts to go, city people have it a lot easier since they can access public transit or elder services to get to doctor appointments and buy groceries and the like. Country folks have to hope they can still drive until they die.

I live in the country, poor. Struggling. I serve my local community on the county level by being on the Senior Council and doing things there. I see a LOT of the problems for seniors in the country. We feel like the old saying, red-headed step-children. No hurtful intent meant. The benefits available can have connected costs and often, enormous repetitious paperwork that has to be done annually. The paperwork alone is a major PITA. It's frustrating. I love living in the country. Right now, the trees are beautiful and soon, the snows of winter will be upon us, bringing beauty while at the same time, I will get an email that a senior needs fuel help and that the Council's Discretionary Fund is the last resort.

investing in our infrastructure, paid parental leave, the program of the democratic socialist left addresses poverty everywhere in america, regardless of who you are or where you live

Especially the rednecks. They are too stupid to vote for their own interests, they back the Republicans at their own peril. Then again, the Republicans seem to be the only ones that care to appeal to them. I would have to say that liberals have done a poor job to reach out to rural people.

I would say LBJ was the last president that actually cared about helping them.

Thanks for the perfect example of the derision the elitist left has for the rural poor. Good job.

Plus, country white people are looked down as stupid idiots by the left. You have to say that there's an undercurrent of smugness within liberals, perhaps due to the disparity in intelligence levels.

country decided on globalization and corporatism. What in deed does a rural state offer when it comes to the New Democrat?

big, corporate farm lobbyists do.

ones you find headquartered in a city. And the only poor people on them are the laborers. And most small farmers today have to have a town job as well as doing the farming to make it.

IMO the only thing that will make a small farm viable today is if climate change causes some real trouble for the big farmers.

I grew up on a 80 acre farm and watched my father go broke in the 50s. But he sold all but 5 acres and he did what the youth in the 70s talked about - he kept us alive by using the 5 acres as if it was everything we needed and to tell you the truth he did a very good job of it.

I know plenty of very intelligent people who have chosen to live rural, build their own homes, grow their own food, and live a wise, sustainable life, and know WHY they have chosen this life. Some have advanced degrees, others have never been past the 5th grade, but have some very deep wisdom about life and nature.
I can learn something from everyone I meet out here in The Woods.

The belief that everyone in the country is a stupid redneck is.....well, a stupid stereotype.

Right?

they cannot be seen as easily as the poc.

for white people who live, poor as they may be, in areas where people of color most often wisely avoid in MO. A surprising number of disabled and poor people I know live in such houses.

Some others do as a regular part of life.

Cops are not trolling their areas like in places like ferguson

Cop thuggery can be about class. It can also be about race. And it can be about class and race.

If you mean left of center progressives then I disagree. The Left(The Democratic Party) and the Right(The Republican Party) are primarily concerned with the 1%. The Left wave the "middle class" banner to get votes, but they are not concerned with the middle class, the urban poor, or the rural poor. I believe left of center progressives are concerned about everybody except maybe the 1%. I don't really think they need anybody to be concerned about them. They are doing just fine. The only ones in the country that are.

I don't think they're interested in what the left has to say even if it could improve their lot in life.

nt

Housing, Energy Assistance and Weatherization, Medicare and Medicaid, Home Health, ACA, SSDI, SSI, LBJ's War on Poverty, and a lot of programs that I cannot even remember.

Those are all long term programs. One of the problems for Democrats is that the poor are always the ones that are on the table when it comes to triangulation. We get sold down the river.

WWJS? (Who would Jesus shoot?)

and i still would vote for edwards

$15/minimum wage, tuition free college, expanding SS, and being against job killing trade deals would help the poor a great deal.

I think agrarian areas have always resisted change since that has usually meant more industrialization and technology, depopulation of rural areas as corporations looking for hordes of cheap labor locate their facilities near population centers and more young people move to the city for jobs, followed by the inevitable loss of media attention and political clout. Add to that a lot of religion and some degree of social pressure to conform where everybody knows everybody else's business, making it harder to escape the mold of acceptability/respectability.

If they are very religious, they probably do not.

http://rfkcenter.org/robert-f-kennedy/robert-f-kennedy-legacy-education-project/poverty/

right answer!

Obama would do it actually, if the rural (white) poor would have voted for himl

Since when they do it's almost always in a dismissive, condescending, arrogant tone that the people living here, even liberals, have come to expect from the leadership on the left and pretty much anyone from the urban northeast or west coast.

And while the folks talking like that expect that the people they are talking about are not smart enough to notice or catch one, they do. And the conservatives in those areas latch on to it and use it to show that the left is out of touch with them.

There is a reason the right in rural states loves to see Micheal Bloomberg come out for or fund any candidate, as an example- he is the walking embodiment of that stereotype and that is almost a kiss of death for that demographic if a candidate is associated with home.

It's the main reason I am supporting Bernie Sanders, as are all of his supporters.

I still think that with some attention and genuine populism which goes back to the late 19th c. in the Midwest and South some could be tapped by the right movement.

Another growing poor demographic on the edge is suburbia, and exurbia which isn't addressed enough IMO. Many of the areas lack even the transportation and albeit reduced public services infrastructure of denser cities, even as many of the larger ones are rapidly gentrifying and displacing average workers.

US Poverty is an abomination in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world.

immigrants out to take their jobs

obama out to take their guns Hunting is big in rural america

big government and they can't get the potholes filed

and what have we done for them?
since medicare precious little

i think rural broadband would be helpful and would work
if would be nice if the state party would realize they are there...here in wisconsin if you are not from madison or milwaukee you do not exist...been that way for years....plenty to promises not delivered

Medicare and sparser populated rural areas receive little to no attention at all, except by the extreme right maybe.
Sorry to know of state party neglect in WI unless you're in a large city. A cousin is in St. Paul, Dem. of course.

which already has nice public broadband.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/24/were_getting_the_right_all_wrong_the_surprising_origins_of_modern_conservative_movement/
"I started writing a journal article about labor struggles in California in the 1930s and I got into the archives of agro-business leaders in California and conservative leaders around the country. The same themes that people talked about as rising in the 1960s were actually present in California in the 1930s. The same philosophies, the same strategies and even the same individuals."

"So I believed that our narrative about the origins of modern conservatism needed to be revised. We need to think about it as coming from the West and as a reaction against New Deal labor laws.
What upset them was [the New Deal’s] giving workers government protection for the right to organize.

In the past, they had the legal rights to organize — but nothing stopped businessmen from refusing to deal with unions or firing people for belonging to unions. What changed in the 1930s is that the government says that workers have the right to collectively bargain and [employers] had to recognize that right or the government would intervene.

This infuriated a lot of big businessmen around the country, because they thought of it as government interference with their relationship with their workers. What was ironic about it in California was that the agro-businessmen who led the charge against New Deal labor laws were not affected by them."

Again, the linked article does not include the whole picture, but rural poverty has been an aid to the industrialists and corporations since the Civil War and before. Racism against Blacks, Asians, Native Americans and Hispanics has been used as an effective tool to prevent the working classes from uniting to better themselves collectively. The New Deal aided these people enraging the powerful people who made money off of them.

Rural communities are still controlled by the same plantation mentality from the West, South and the mining regions controlled by the robber barons whose families and/or corporate structures(OH, PA, KY, WV, IN).

I would highly suggest watching Ken Burns' documentary The Dust Bowl, too.

The rural population of this country is highly propagandized by right wing media. If you live in an urban area, you have no idea how little information rural people actually receive.

I hope Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about this issue a lot more. It is past time to concede rural areas to the right wing. Rural people used to vote Democratic thanks to FDR.

There are poor people all over but out here they are hidden in the woods. People can get real sick out here before anyone notices. I work in an inner city hospital with people in mental health crisis so they tend to get noticed by the neighbors if life is really going off the rails. Out here where I live it takes a time for people to notice. My county has no services for anything. We don't have mental health services here, you have to go 2 counties over.
I volunteer twice a year for the health clinic one of the churches does out here. Interesting the pastor is from India, when he moved here he believed the poverty in this country was exaggerated compared to India. He was stunned. We have people literally living in shacks in the woods. The county still hasn't met the goal of electricity and plumbing for all. We still have a few old African Americans who were sold to white farmers during the depression because their families couldn't feed them. Yes long after slavery was over. Luckily most old people still have kin or church out here but its stunning to see how many worked the farms or lumber co's for decades, got paid in cash and have nothing. The myth you can hunt and grow your own falls apart when you are old or disabled. There are people with no transportation who I pass sometimes when I'm driving early in the morning. They are walking for miles to do seasonal farm work. There are no jobs out here. Many poor folks participate in the underground economy. They might be the guy who fixes lawn mowers or someone who cleans houses or sells produce or chickens. There's no retirement for them. And people get hurt out here and don't get workmen's compensation I live in a state that refused the medicaid expansion. Even if they had insurance there is literally no doctor in this county.
And when it goes to shit out here it can be dramatic. Couple of years ago an older lady was going downhill and she had 2 old horses she could no longer buy hay or feed for them and she couldn't keep her pasture up for them to graze. She couldn't even keep her electricity on and so the well pump didn't work. She wouldn't leave because of the horses. She couldn't afford a vet to put them down. Anyway some of us asked a neighbor to shoot them for her. It's illegal here but what else could we do. We had been helping her for years with them, sending hay over. She wasn't going to leave. They had a humane end, it was quick and the shot was well done. We had contacted rescues. 2 old toothless horses who hadn't left their home in 30 years, no the bullet was kinder.

Most of us check on our elderly or disabled neighbors daily.
My wife is the only Medical First Responder for 60 sq miles, and she knows everybody.

As the administrator of our small rural Fire Department, she (and) most of the rest of us) know the names and some details of every resident in our district, recent arrivals, those in poor health, those too old to live out here but refuse to move, and those no longer with us.She has to collect non-mandatory "Dues" every year. Those who can't pay, don't have to.


At 65, I am getting too old to care for our place like I once did.
I am having trouble with my legs....and it terrifies me. I'm not done with my work, and it won't get done if I can't walk, clear land, or cut timber.
I hate the idea of selling and moving into town.

10 years ago, it was easy to boast, "I am going to die working here,"...but when the pain hits, it can change one's mind very quickly.

My late husband and I had 2 medical catastrophe s in 3 years but thankfully one of us was recovered enough to keep afloat. Then he died. It was abundantly clear this place had deteriorated while we were struggling with our health. After his death, I realized the animals were going to pay the price for our decline and his eventual death. I found homes for the horses and goats. 11 dogs are now 3. I still have a few hens left.
I love my place but I'm only hanging on to it. I have 7 more months before I can stop working. Then I will leave. I never pictured this coming so soon. I can't see the neighbors. I joke with my 69 year old friend down the road when we drive past each others place to take note if vultures are circling the place. Her well has big problems and her heat isn't working. Last winter she stayed with me when she had no water.
I quess I am complaining but I've come to grips with the changes I have to make over the past year. I'll be OK. I thought about moving closer to civilization and then thought what the hell, if I got to live near people I might be better off living right downtown in a city so I can walk or uber to culture and food. It might even be an adventure.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/24/were_getting_the_right_all_wrong_the_surprising_origins_of_modern_conservative_movement/
"I started writing a journal article about labor struggles in California in the 1930s and I got into the archives of agro-business leaders in California and conservative leaders around the country. The same themes that people talked about as rising in the 1960s were actually present in California in the 1930s. The same philosophies, the same strategies and even the same individuals."

"So I believed that our narrative about the origins of modern conservatism needed to be revised. We need to think about it as coming from the West and as a reaction against New Deal labor laws.
What upset them was [the New Deal’s] giving workers government protection for the right to organize.

In the past, they had the legal rights to organize — but nothing stopped businessmen from refusing to deal with unions or firing people for belonging to unions. What changed in the 1930s is that the government says that workers have the right to collectively bargain and [employers] had to recognize that right or the government would intervene.

This infuriated a lot of big businessmen around the country, because they thought of it as government interference with their relationship with their workers. What was ironic about it in California was that the agro-businessmen who led the charge against New Deal labor laws were not affected by them."

Again, the linked article does not include the whole picture, but rural poverty has been an aid to the industrialists and corporations since the Civil War and before. Racism against Blacks, Asians, Native Americans and Hispanics has been used as an effective tool to prevent the working classes from uniting to better themselves collectively. The New Deal aided these people enraging the powerful people who made money off of them.

Rural communities are still controlled by the same plantation mentality from the West, South and the mining regions controlled by the robber barons whose families and/or corporate structures(OH, PA, KY, WV, IN).

I would highly suggest watching Ken Burns' documentary The Dust Bowl, too.

The rural population of this country is highly propagandized by right wing media. If you live in an urban area, you have no idea how little information rural people actually receive.

I hope Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about this issue a lot more. It is past time to concede rural areas to the right wing. Rural people used to vote Democratic thanks to FDR.

I read these threads a lot, and I am not a 'liberal' but my family until recently has always been Democrats, and after reading this very exact thread, I thought I would go make a profile and comment on some items on here.

First, I am from Kentucky, 6 miles from the West Virginia border. Born there, raised there until I was 15 (or there about).

First, most people in this region did not know they were 'poor' until Cable showed us the world outside of our Mountain Homes, or in my case when I was 15, we moved to Boston, and it was a cultural conflict of the worst kind.

I was quickly informed by 90 plus % of everyone in Boston, that I was 'dumb, stupid, ignorant, redneck, white trash, etc" I could go on forever, but we (I have lots of siblings) got it 24/7 for a solid year. As I read thru this thread, I saw the words "dumb rednecks" twice, and other not so kind adjectives to describe me and my people. It was also the first time I knew how I was 'poor' Where we came from, we were all basically the same, and we thought that's how it was. Rudely awaken to the truth of that. When you attack people personally, then want them to side with you on issues, its very conflicting in our minds. Vote for us while me point our fingers at you and make fun of you. I even saw 1 person who said "just because they are les intelligent" right here in this very thread. You think this is the correct way to talk to an entire group of people numbering in the 30 million range?

I have seen Ghettos, and yes, its awful in a different way, but I can tell you that neither is a great way to grow up, both have issues that need resolved, but everyone here knows that the money will go to a city before it comes to Appalachia. We have forever been on our own, and we will continue to be on our own.

So, why does a group who until recently voted solid Democrat, now vote the other way? I often think about this, and think it comes down to a few things. Guns are one part, and our Guns are like tools to us, because without them we don't eat and most of us have some livestock, and the need to protect that source of income/food is very important. 2nd amendment being put to the side, without Guns our lives, already difficult, become almost unbearable now. So, for us, yes, Guns are needed as we have carved our way of life in a very hostile environment with them, and now the idea is to take them away? I understand not everyone wants to take them, but there is a very very vocal minority here that does. I hunted since I was a very young boy, alone. I don't ever once recall a person being killed by a gun (unless accidently). I think Guns are a problem in some areas because of population density, but maybe part of the problem also is Gun Education. I cant seem to wrap my mind around this. I grew up in a home with more than 10 guns, with LOTS of kids around.

God/Religion I am not an overly religious person, but it is part of our culture even for us border line Agnostics. I still go to Church on some days, not because of Religion, but because it is what I have always done. However, after Guns Religion I think is #2 on the list of these people. They feel like its a direct attack on their culture/way of life, and so of course they are going to dig their heels in. They are already a stubborn lot, and they take this stuff personal.

I went to College up North at a very nice school, so I understand the 'difference', lived in 2 big Northeast cities for a while (more than 5 years both times) been all over the world, so I know both worlds. Each has their own 'pros' and 'cons'.

Our Poverty in this area, I think is eternal We have no options outside of our small areas. We have to take whatever job is available, and our poverty is also generational. We had no electric, no running water. This was a REAl way of life for us. We didn't cut wood, we got cold. We left a toilet seat by the wood stove, so it was warm, and took it with us to the outhouse. We had a nice long stick on a chain in there, to make sure no spiders were in the hole...lol I had 2 pairs of overalls One was a nice pair, one was for working/playing in.

When I see poor kids in the city, they seem to have more assistance/resources available to them without effort, than we did.

Welcome!

And welcome to DU! (as a poster).