Immigrants as scapegoats

[Dill]

(12-26-2018, 08:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, there is a theory in sociology that is used to try to explain prejudice called the scapegoat theory. It isn't 100% correct for a number of reasons that I won't get into, but the gist is that people will blame another group for their woes and so that fosters this prejudice. Another theory is based on conflict, and that the elites promote this prejudice to benefit themselves.

This isn't to deny that immigration has been an issue for many years, but the interesting thing to think about is how in certain populist movements there have been efforts by populist leaders to focus attention of their followers onto a demographic group to blame for their ills. We've seen this all throughout history where a racial, ethnic, or national group or groups are used as scapegoats to create a foil. This is often used to distract from the growing socioeconomic differences between those in power and the rest of the population. The rich get richer on the backs of the poor while they convince the poor that another group of poor people are to blame. They are taking their jobs, their benefits, etc.

In actuality, poor people that are a part of the majority have more in common with the poor people in the minority group being used as a scapegoat than they do with those that they are being manipulated by.

Just some interesting thoughts.

Forum still open on Saturday? Ok. John B. Judis, in The Populist Exploson: How the Great Recession Transformed American and European Politics, argues an interesting distinction between left and right-wing populism. 

He says that left-wing populism is "dyadic," positing the people versus an elite. 

Right-wing populism also affirms a people versus and elite, but is "triadic" in that it involves a third group--Jews, Muslims, immigrants--which populists then accuse the elite of "coddling" (in Judis' words).  Hence the often tremendous anger at other poor or disadvantaged folks, who may also (I add) be characterized as taking something away from the "real" people, diminishing their economic returns or somehow getting more "privileges" than the real people, even as this third group is protected by the elites. 

I happened to think of this as I was pondering the puzzling rage which the term "White privilege" sometimes generates. Some people just want to know what the term means and what (or whether) it describes. Others quickly gloss it to cover whining minorities who still blame whitey for their problems, and insist whites have no privilege whatsoever, or no longer if they once had it, or that really there are all kinds of privileges which non-white males have and non-whites can be racist too, and the like. One group of whites responds to it as a term of social-historical inquiry and another group responds as if it were a personal accusation.

What accounts for the difference in reception? Are the former representatives of the "elite"? Do the latter fall into the right-wing populist category?