Poverty is a class issue, not a race issue. Sometimes they are correlated (US cities, all of the US southeast), sometimes not (west Virginia, rural everywhere EXCEPT the southeast, everything Irish - - you can't get whiter than Irish)
Sectarianism was a pretty dreadful problem in Glasgow (and to a lesser extent the other cities in the Central belt of Scotland) - it still exists although not nearly as bad as it used to be:
My (poorly articulated) point is that all the non-class markers we use to oppress people - whether skin color, religion, accent, clothing style, music preferences, etc - just disguise class oppression. In the USA, I think we emphasize color in order to avoid the hard truth that society was created so that a few could fuck the many.
And I meant "white" literally, to point out the absurdity that poverty is a function of skin color as opposed to deep class organization. If light skin color is what made one rich and powerful, then Catholic Irish would be at the top. But...
I agree with that, recently read a rant about how liberals have fallen into the trap of seeing oppression as caused by discrimination based on skin color, instead of of oppression as a power class thing. And think if only some of the feet in the boot were brown that'll be fair.
Does it help a man of color if the foot in the boot is sometimes brown? I think not a boot is a boot.
