The Rio Stanton Report

Tag: culture

What White Supremacy Actually Means

In political debates today, the term “white supremacy” is often treated as if it only refers to extremist groups of people wearing robes, burning crosses, having shaved heads, sporting swastikas, or openly identifying with organizations like the Ku Klux Klan.

A cross and a swastika burning at a modern Klan rally.

But historically and academically, the concept is broader than that.

White supremacy refers to the belief (explicit or implicit) that white people and white cultural norms represent the highest or most advanced model of civilization and humanity. It is the assumption that whiteness is the standard by which intelligence, morality, competence, and social order should be measured.

This belief does not always appear in openly violent or in cartoonishly belligerent forms. It often appears in subtler assumptions about who is naturally suited for leadership, who is presumed competent, and who must constantly prove themselves.

For example, racial explanations are frequently used to explain social outcomes. Certain groups are sometimes associated with crime, others with academic achievement, others with competent leadership, and others with athletic success.

But when scientists examine many of these assumptions, the explanations often turn out to be social rather than biological.

A useful example comes from long-distance running.

For decades, athletes from Kenya and Ethiopia have dominated international distance running competitions, frequently winning Olympic and marathon events. Some Western researchers initially suspected that East Africans might possess unique genetic advantages that gave them superior endurance.

After extensive study, scientists found no definitive genetic explanation.

What they did find were social and environmental factors: training culture, altitude conditions, economic incentives, and the perception that success in distance running could provide a path to financial mobility.

In other words, success was driven less by biology than by opportunity, culture, and motivation.

The same dynamic appears in many other areas of life. When communities see certain fields as viable paths to advancement and upward socioeconomic mobility, they invest time, energy, and cultural value into those pursuits. This is true whether these pursuits are sports, academics, entertainment, or various professions (think of Irish immigrants of the 19th century and their attraction towards first responder professions).

When people attribute success or failure primarily to race, they overlook these structural and social factors.

That is where racial ideology begins to appear.

If someone believes that race alone determines intelligence, morality, or ability, they are embracing a worldview that closely resembles classical racist thinking. The assumption that certain groups are naturally superior or inferior has historically been used to justify exclusion, discrimination, and unequal opportunity.

Understanding these ideas requires moving beyond stereotypes and examining how beliefs about race shape expectations and institutions.

White supremacy, in this broader sense, is not only about extremist organizations.

It is about the belief that human potential can be ranked according to race, and that some groups are naturally meant to lead while others must struggle to be accepted.

History and science consistently show that reality is far more complex than that.

March 9, 2026
The Pandemic Conspiracy That Makes No Economic Sense

One argument that has circulated repeatedly since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic is the idea that governments and major industries somehow wanted lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates.

But when you stop and look at the economic reality, that claim becomes very difficult to understand.

Entire sectors of the economy were devastated by the pandemic. Restaurants, tourism, hospitality, airlines, amusement parks, theaters, sports leagues, universities, entertainment industries, public transportation systems, and countless small businesses lost enormous amounts of revenue beginning in March 2020.

Many of these industries lost billions of dollars. Some may never fully recover.

If the goal of modern capitalism is economic growth (more consumption, more travel, more entertainment spending, more tourism, more investment), then deliberately shutting down large portions of the economy would make very little sense as a strategy.

Yet conspiracy narratives often assume that powerful actors wanted exactly that outcome.

This assumption ignores how economic systems actually function. Modern capitalism depends on expanding markets and constant activity. The pandemic disrupted supply chains, slowed production, closed venues, and drastically reduced consumer spending in many sectors.

In other words, the pandemic did not strengthen the economic system. It destabilized it.

At the same time, many of the people promoting conspiracy theories about public health measures express deep distrust of pharmaceutical companies while simultaneously promoting alternative drug treatments produced by the same pharmaceutical industry.

That contradiction often goes unnoticed.

Another common pattern during the pandemic has been the rejection of scientific expertise in favor of viral claims circulating through social media, talk shows, or online influencers. Medical studies are cited without being understood, preliminary data is interpreted incorrectly, and isolated findings are often exaggerated into sweeping conclusions.

Skepticism toward institutions can be healthy. Governments, corporations, and medical authorities should absolutely be questioned and held accountable.

But skepticism is not the same thing as assuming that every crisis is part of a hidden plot.

Public health policies during the pandemic have been controversial, imperfect, and sometimes poorly communicated. But the idea that entire economies would intentionally sabotage themselves in order to impose temporary public health measures requires a level of coordination and self-destruction that makes little practical sense.

The pandemic created real economic disruption, real political conflict, and real human tragedy.

Understanding those realities requires serious discussion—not conspiracy theories about why a society built on economic growth would willingly shut itself down.

March 9, 2026
The Real Purpose of College in Modern America

One uncomfortable truth about higher education in the United States is that very few people actually attend universities for a liberal arts education.

In fact, the idea of pursuing knowledge for its own sake is often mocked in our society. Students who study philosophy, history, literature, or other liberal arts fields are frequently told they are wasting their time.

For most people, the real reasons for attending college are much simpler: career advancement and social networking(which are not necessarily bad pursuits).

The goal is not to become more learned. The goal is to get paid.

At the same time, the economic reality of college has changed dramatically. College degrees do not guarantee the salaries they once did, and millions of students graduate carrying large amounts of debt. This debt can take decades to repay and often weighs heavily on their financial futures.

Because of this, trade schools are beginning to look like a much more practical option for many people.

Many skilled trades, such as electricians, mechanics, welders, plumbers, construction specialists, and others, often pay solid wages relatively quickly while also providing hands-on experience. In many cases, people in these professions begin earning money sooner and accumulate far less debt than those who pursue traditional four-year degrees.

Yet these professions are often looked down upon in a culture that tends to equate white-collar work with success and blue-collar work with failure.

That assumption is deeply misguided.

Our society depends on skilled labor just as much as it depends on professionals with university degrees. We need the people who build and maintain our infrastructure. We need the technicians who repair our aircraft and maintain our electrical systems. We need the workers who build roads, maintain water systems, repair engines, and keep cities functioning.

These jobs may not always carry the same social prestige as corporate or professional careers, but they are no less essential.

None of this is an argument against universities themselves. Higher education still plays a vital role in a healthy and thoughtful society, particularly when universities function as places for intellectual exploration, critical thinking, and the exchange of ideas.

The problem is not education. I love education.

The problem is the way education has increasingly been treated as a business model and reduced to a credentialing system designed primarily to produce workers rather than thinkers.

A society that values knowledge should support universities.

But a society that understands how the world actually works should also respect the skilled trades.

Electricians, mechanics, construction workers, and technicians are not somehow lesser contributors to society.

They are essential to it.

March 9, 2026
Poverty Looks the Same Everywhere

One of the things that traveling around the United States has taught me is that poverty appears remarkably similar, regardless of where you encounter it.

Despite the racial narratives that often dominate political conversations, the visible signs of poverty tend to repeat themselves in the same ways across the country.

The same kinds of conditions that people associate with poor urban neighborhoods (many of which are predominantly Black or Latino) can also be found in economically depressed small towns that are overwhelmingly white.

In both places, you see the same signs of economic struggle.

You see old vehicles with long-expired temporary tags.
You see houses in serious need of repair.
You see groups of men standing around with little to do but pass the time drinking.
You see drug use and the informal economies that grow around poverty, including prostitution.

The physical environments may differ somewhat. Urban poverty often exists in densely populated neighborhoods surrounded by wealthier suburbs. Rural poverty tends to exist in isolated towns surrounded by farmland or land owned by more affluent property holders.

But the underlying conditions are strikingly similar.

Poverty produces the same kinds of social and economic realities regardless of the racial makeup of the people experiencing it.

Traveling makes that clear in a way that political rhetoric often obscures.

In political debates, poverty is frequently racialized. Certain communities are blamed for the conditions in which they live, while others are treated as victims of economic change or government neglect.

But when you actually see these communities up close—when you drive through them, walk through them, and talk to the people who live there—the similarities become difficult to ignore.

Poverty is not confined to one race or one region.

It is a structural condition that appears wherever economic opportunity disappears, and communities are left behind.

And the longer people ignore that reality, the easier it becomes for political narratives to divide communities that are, in many ways, experiencing the same struggles.

March 9, 2026
Policing, Power, and the Battle Over Public Narrative Part 3: Why “Blue Lives Matter” Misses the Point

In response to the Black Lives Matter movement, a new slogan began circulating in political discourse: “Blue Lives Matter.”

Supporters of the phrase often describe it as a show of solidarity with law enforcement officers. At first glance, that explanation may appear reasonable.

However, the slogan presents several problems.

First, policing is a profession, not an identity. Individuals choose to become police officers, while race is an inherent characteristic that people do not choose.

Second, police officers already receive substantial institutional support and public recognition.

When an officer is killed in the line of duty, the incident typically receives widespread media attention. Memorial funds are established, funeral services are attended by officials from multiple agencies, and the officer’s name may be added to national memorials honoring fallen law enforcement personnel.

Numerous organizations also exist specifically to support police officers and their families. These include groups such as:

• Concerns of Police Survivors (C.O.P.S.)
• The Fraternal Order of Police Foundation
• The Officer Down Memorial Page
• The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund

In other words, support systems for police officers already exist and are widely recognized.

The phrase “Blue Lives Matter,” therefore, does not address a lack of recognition or support for law enforcement. Instead, it emerged primarily as a reaction to the concerns raised by Black Lives Matter.

Because of this context, many people, including me, view the slogan not as a genuine expression of support for police officers, but as a cynical rhetorical attempt to dismiss the grievances being expressed by those calling for police accountability.

It is entirely possible to support the idea of law enforcement while also demanding transparency and accountability within policing institutions.

In fact, those goals are not contradictory. They are mutually reinforcing.

Public trust in law enforcement grows stronger when citizens believe that misconduct will be taken seriously and addressed fairly.

Ultimately, the goal should not be to compete over slogans or hashtags. The goal should be to create a justice system that treats every person with equal dignity and respect under the law.

March 7, 2026
Policing, Power, and the Battle Over Public Narrative Part 2: The Myth of a “War on Police”

One of the most common claims made by critics of the Black Lives Matter movement is that it promotes hostility toward law enforcement or contributes to what some commentators describe as a “war on police.”

This claim has been repeated frequently in political commentary and media coverage. However, when the available evidence is examined, the narrative becomes far less convincing.

Statistics from organizations such as the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund show that the number of police officers killed in the line of duty has generally declined over the past several decades (except for during the peak of the COVID pandemic, when all crimes were spiking).

Even during the years following the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, the overall number of officer fatalities has remained historically low compared to earlier periods in American history.

In other words, the idea that police officers are facing unprecedented levels of violence is not supported by the available data.

It is also worth noting that the individuals responsible for attacks on police officers come from a wide variety of backgrounds and motivations. Some attacks have been politically motivated, while others were committed by individuals with no connection to any political movement.

Despite this, critics often attempt to attribute every violent incident involving police officers to the Black Lives Matter movement as a whole.

This is a logical fallacy.

Large social movements consist of many individuals and groups with different motivations and beliefs. Holding an entire movement responsible for the actions of isolated individuals is both inaccurate and intellectually dishonest.

At the same time, when politically motivated violence against police officers has been carried out by individuals associated with far-right ideologies, those incidents are rarely used to condemn conservative political movements as a whole.

This double standard plays a significant role in shaping the public narrative surrounding policing and protest.

Criticism of police misconduct is not the same thing as hostility toward police officers. In fact, many people who call for police accountability also believe that effective and professional law enforcement is essential to a functioning society.

The real issue is not whether police officers deserve support.

The real issue is whether the institutions responsible for enforcing the law are held accountable when mistakes or abuses occur.

March 6, 2026
Policing, Power, and the Battle Over Public Narrative Part 1: The Origins of “Black Lives Matter”

In recent years, the phrase “Black Lives Matter” has become one of the most widely discussed and widely misunderstood slogans in American public life.

To many supporters, the phrase represents a call for accountability and equal justice under the law. To many critics, however, it has been portrayed as anti-police, anti-white, or even anti-American.

To understand the movement honestly, it is important to start with the basic facts about how it began.

Black Lives Matter did not emerge from a political think tank, a political party, or a coordinated national organization. Instead, it began as a social media response to a widely publicized case that many people believed represented a failure of the justice system.

On February 26, 2012, seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in Sanford, Florida, by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman. Martin was unarmed and had been walking back from a convenience store after purchasing a bag of Skittles and a drink.

Initially, Zimmerman was not arrested. The police accepted his claim of self-defense and released him without charges.

As news of the case spread across social media, many Americans (particularly Black Americans) viewed the situation as part of a long pattern in which violence against Black people was often minimized or excused.

Following Zimmerman’s eventual acquittal in 2013, three community organizers, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, helped popularize the phrase “Black Lives Matter.”

Garza made a Facebook post which ended in the phrase, “Our lives Matter, Black Lives Matter”. The hashtag and online campaign were born due to that post, and it went viral.

Black Lives Matter didn’t make it into the national and mainstream public spotlight until the following summer (2014) after the killing of Michael Brown Jr. by Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson. More than one hundred Black Lives Matter protestors came from out of state to Ferguson, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis, to join the local protests that had been going on immediately after the shooting.

The phrase was not meant to suggest that other lives do not matter. Instead, it was intended to emphasize a specific concern: that Black lives have historically been treated as less valuable within American legal and social systems.

In other words, the statement “Black Lives Matter” was not meant to exclude anyone. It was meant to highlight a problem that many people believed had long been ignored.

The movement that followed was decentralized and loosely organized. It consisted of activists, community leaders, and ordinary citizens who were concerned about issues such as police accountability, racial profiling, and unequal treatment within the criminal justice system.

Understanding this origin is important because much of the debate surrounding Black Lives Matter today is shaped by narratives that emerged after the movement began — narratives that often bear little resemblance to its original purpose.

March 6, 2026
Why I Still Celebrate Independence Day

Every year on July 4th, Americans celebrate Independence Day with family gatherings, barbecues, and fireworks. For many, it is a day of patriotic pride, a celebration of freedom and the sacrifices made to preserve it.

But for others, the holiday carries a very different meaning.

Frederick Douglass once famously asked, “What to the slave is the Fourth of July?” In 1852, his answer was clear: the holiday represented a painful contradiction between America’s ideals and its reality. More than a century later, that question still echoes—but the answer has evolved.

Critics of Independence Day often point out a painful historical truth: when the United States declared its independence in 1776, the promise of liberty did not apply to everyone. Millions of people were enslaved, Native Americans were being displaced and killed, and women and poor men were excluded from political power.

The contradiction is obvious.

The same document that declared, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” was written by Thomas Jefferson, who owned slaves and wrote extensively about his belief in Black inferiority.

These criticisms are not wrong. They are historically accurate.

The freedom celebrated on July 4th was originally intended primarily for land-owning white men. Black Americans, Native Americans, women, and many others were excluded from those rights.

Even during the Revolutionary War, enslaved Black people who sought to fight for the American colonies were often rejected. Meanwhile, the British offered freedom to enslaved people who joined their forces. Later, during the Constitutional Convention, the young nation again refused to confront slavery to maintain unity between Northern and Southern states.

For these reasons, I understand why some people view Independence Day with skepticism or even contempt.

But while I sympathize with that perspective, I do not share it.

Despite the hypocrisy of many of the Founding Fathers, we must also remember another truth: this country was built in large part by the labor, skill, and resilience of enslaved Black people.

The American colonies became economically powerful through crops such as tobacco, sugar, and rice. These industries made their overwhelming prosperity possible by enslaved labor and agricultural knowledge brought from Africa. In many ways, the wealth that allowed the colonies to rebel against Britain was created by the very people who were denied freedom.

Our ancestors helped build this country.

And many of them knew it.

Throughout the nineteenth century, some white abolitionists supported efforts to relocate free Black Americans to Africa through organizations such as the American Colonization Society. Liberia itself was founded by freed American slaves.

But many Black Americans rejected that idea. They chose to remain in the United States and fight for their rightful place within the country their ancestors had helped build.

That is a perspective I share.

If someone kidnaps you, forces you to build a house, and then tells you that you are free to leave once the work is finished, that does not erase the fact that you helped build the house.

You have a claim to it.

I am an American. This is my country.

The personal beliefs of many of the Founding Fathers matter less to me than the political framework they created. The words they wrote, however imperfectly applied at the time, provided the foundation for later struggles for freedom.

The ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution were eventually used by abolitionists, civil rights leaders, and countless activists to argue that the nation must live up to its own principles.

Jefferson may not have meant all people when he wrote that all men are created equal. But that is what he wrote, and those words became powerful tools in the fight for equality.

The American political system, flawed as it has been, allowed movements for abolition, civil rights, and expanded democratic rights to emerge and reshape the country.

The fact that I can speak freely today (even critically) about the history and institutions of this country is evidence of that evolution.

Because of the protections enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I can express my beliefs, criticize injustice, and advocate for change without fear of imprisonment or execution.

That freedom matters.

So, when I celebrate Independence Day, I am not celebrating the perfection of the Founding Fathers. I am not celebrating a past that excluded my ancestors.

What I celebrate is freedom itself.

The freedom that was denied to my ancestors.

The freedom that generations of Americans struggled to expand.

The freedom that remains imperfect, but real.

This country has a painful history, and it still faces serious challenges. But it is also my home.

And despite everything, I love it.

When I celebrate Independence Day, I celebrate the ongoing struggle to make the promise of liberty real for everyone.

Because the words written in 1776 still matter:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

May we continue working toward a country where those words apply to all of us.

March 6, 2026
American History Myths #4: The Myth That the Parties Never Realigned

One of the most persistent claims in modern political debates is that the Democratic and Republican parties have remained essentially the same throughout American history. According to this argument, the political coalitions and ideologies of the nineteenth century supposedly still define the parties today.

This claim ignores one of the most well-documented developments in American political history: the gradual ideological realignment of the two major parties from the late nineteenth century through the late twentieth century.

Following the Civil War, the Republican Party was widely associated with the Union victory and the abolition of slavery. During Reconstruction, Republicans supported many early civil rights measures intended to protect the rights of newly freed Black Americans.

However, that political commitment weakened dramatically after the Compromise of 1877, which effectively ended Reconstruction. Federal enforcement of civil rights protections collapsed, and white supremacist governments regained control across much of the South.

For decades afterward, Southern politics was dominated by segregationist Democratic politicians often referred to as Dixiecrats. These politicians supported Jim Crow laws, racial segregation, and policies designed to disenfranchise Black voters.

But American political coalitions were not static.

Beginning in the mid-twentieth century, particularly during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, many white Southern conservatives began shifting their political allegiance. As national Democratic leaders increasingly supported civil rights legislation, large numbers of segregationist voters and politicians gradually moved toward the Republican Party.

This transition did not happen overnight. It unfolded over several decades, from the 1960s through the 1980s and even into the early 1990s. Historians and political scientists commonly refer to this process as political realignment.

The shift can be seen in electoral patterns across the South. States that had reliably voted for Democratic presidential candidates for nearly a century increasingly began supporting Republican candidates. Conservative Southern politicians who once identified as Democrats also began switching parties.

Despite this well-documented transformation, some modern political commentators attempt to deny that any realignment occurred. Instead, they argue that the parties remain essentially unchanged and that historical responsibility for segregationist politics belongs exclusively to one party.

But historical evidence tells a more complicated story.

The ideological divide in American politics has long revolved less around party labels and more around competing views about civil rights, federal power, and social hierarchy. Over time, the political coalitions representing those views have shifted between parties.

This is why discussions of American political history require careful attention to ideology, region, and historical context, rather than relying solely on party labels.

Reducing the history of American civil rights struggles to simple partisan talking points obscures the reality of how political coalitions evolve. Understanding that evolution is essential for understanding the political landscape of the United States today.

March 6, 2026
American History Myth #2: The Myth of “Anglo-American Culture”

Why American culture has always been a cultural fusion.

In recent years, the word “culture” has increasingly become a coded talking point in political debates about immigration and national identity. Some commentators claim that the United States was founded on a supposedly pure “Anglo-American culture” that must be protected from outside influence.

The problem is that this idea collapses under even basic historical scrutiny.

From its very beginning, the United States was not the product of a single culture. It emerged from the interaction of many peoples: Native Americans, Europeans from multiple nations, and Africans brought through the transatlantic slave trade. What developed over time was not a uniform tradition but a cultural fusion.

Even the political ideas behind the United States were influenced by multiple traditions. The Magna Carta is often cited as an inspiration for American constitutional principles, but historians have also noted the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy’s Great Law of Peace on early American political thought.

The Iroquois Confederacy’s Great Law of Peace was one of the inspirations for the Constitution of the United States

The same cultural blending appears throughout everyday American life.

Many foods commonly associated with European cuisine actually originated in the Americas. Crops such as corn, potatoes, and tomatoes, and meats such as turkeys were unknown in Europe before the Columbian Exchange. Today, these foods are staples in dishes that people often assume are traditionally European.

American music tells a similar story. Genres that many people associate with “white” American culture (such as country, bluegrass, and rock) developed from the interaction of African instruments and musical traditions with European instruments and folk styles. Even square dancing reflects this cultural exchange.

The English language as spoken in the United States also reveals the depth of these influences. Many common words come from Native American languages. Animals such as moose, coyote, and skunk all derive their names from Indigenous sources. Other words, such as banjo, banana, cola, yam, and goober, entered English through African languages.

This pattern is not unique to the United States. Cultural mixing has shaped societies throughout history.

The culture of the modern United Kingdom, for example, developed from layers of migration and conquest. The British Isles were shaped by the interactions of Celtic peoples, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans, and others. Each group influenced the culture that followed.

The same dynamic occurred in the United States.

Throughout American history, waves of immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Italy, Poland, China, Japan, Mexico, and many other places have contributed to the country’s evolving culture. Each group added elements that eventually became part of what we now recognize as American life.

Even in the colonial period, there was no single “Anglo-American” culture. Colonial societies differed dramatically from region to region. New York began as a Dutch colony before the British took control. Pennsylvania attracted Quakers and later large numbers of Catholics. Delaware was originally settled by the Swedes. Cultural diversity existed from the very beginning.

This is why the claim that America must preserve a single “Anglo-American culture” is historically misleading. American culture has never been static, and it has never belonged to just one group.

It has always been shaped by the interaction of many peoples and traditions.

The United States will continue to evolve as people from places such as Nigeria, Honduras, Haiti, Nepal, and Fiji make their lives here. That evolution is not a threat to American culture. It is how American culture has always developed.

No culture remains frozen in time. The story of American culture, like the story of every nation, is one of constant change.

March 6, 2026