|>>|| No. 89770
Well... Not quite. They still have their Old Money types, and if you're not part of that OG Colonial Crackas club you'll never be in it, even if you're the President of the United States. This is a large part of the reason the US establishment has vilified Trump, he's not part of that old reptilian aristocracy, even if he's filthy fucking rich. There's a reason Tiger Woods was fair game for wholesale press slander, and it's the same reason premiership footballers and celebrities over here are. Filthy rich, but still working class.
Even so, money still makes enough of a difference to make almost any and all racially, sexually or gender based discrimination complaint utterly irrelevant. I'm reminded of the thing we have over here where West Ham fans chuck bananas at black players. I heard one of those players speaking at an interview and he said, with a degree of frankness the interviewers weren't expecting, that it's hard to let insults like that get under his skin when he earns more in a week than many of those people do in their lives.
Money changes the balance of power. If I'm a middle class white guy, and I called the black CEO of an oil company a monkey, the balance of power is squarely in his favour because he is so rich. Calling him a monkey is no longer punching down like it would be if I called a street youf from East London the same thing.
That's what I already alluded to in mentioning the strong streak of traditional conservatism amongst US black and British Asian demographics. They certainly have their reasons- With black folks it's because they desire the most freedom possible and least inSURFerence from white men in government. In British Asians it's because they want the freedom to lock their women in cupboards or exploit the workers in their carpet emporium.
But the case is still pretty strong that being conservative when you're poor is in fact a sign you're thick.