We live on a world the motion of which reminds us every day that we cannot believe everything we think we are seeing – right there in front of us – with our own eyes. Sometimes, additional information is required before we understand something else is going on. We see the sun rise in the east; we learn the sun never rises. We live in a time when it may be difficult but will be necessary to keep all of this in mind.

People to whom some of us pay no particular attention have given us a reason to view them askance. The problem is they look exactly like many others who give us no reason to regard them that way. The dilemma is not new; it is one whites have been presenting to blacks ever since Europeans brought African slaves to this land: how do we not paint everyone in a single group with one broad brush? The answer always has been dependent upon the actions of individuals. Unfortunately, when the action in question is veiled by a secret ballot, there is no way for an outside observer to discern what to think of the individual observed – other than by additional observation, something not easily accomplished when dealing with strangers.

In the elections of 2016, a majority of white voters made themselves suspect by casting their votes in a manner that common sense and/or common decency would seem to have precluded. In doing so, they likely contributed to a rise in negative views about whites in general. Never mind the possibility that the number of whites who stayed home but would not have voted for Trump – combined with those who voted for someone else – may far exceed the number of those who did vote to put Trump in the White House. That is a statistic we don’t have. The one that matters is the one that produced the election results.

There are some people who scoff at the idea that any white person should be viewed differently than any other. I haven’t heard anyone advance the whole Yakub-and-his-race-of-devils thing lately; it’s more or less along the lines of “well, you know how they are.” People can hold this view despite not only knowing some white people well, but while having white friends; they tend, however, to be wary of whites they do not know.

Because of this nation’s history, that wariness is a widely-felt one. Yet, despite the race-based obstruction and disrespect we saw directed at a black president, some of us lowered our guard; we could see that none of the slings and arrows arrayed against him had prevented this country from electing him twice. Former Republican-operative Nicole Wallace, a never-Trumper, has spent time talking to whites who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, but voted for Trump in 2016. She, like others, are keen to understand why. Among the many to whom she spoke were a young man who had lost his job and felt on the verge of losing his house and his family, and a middle-aged woman who was not struggling financially but said she just didn’t like Hillary Clinton. What became clear is that what happened last November may be seen by some as the ultimate repudiation of Obama, but it was not. It was something wholly different; it was the affirmation of what Trump espouses and claims to represent. This is much worse than a rejection of Obama and causes – fair or not — an increase in a general wariness.

We have been asked to regard the precarious position of the left-behind white with empathy. We are told it is their desperate economic condition that drove them to a candidate like Trump, but this is a supposition not supported by fact, as evidenced by this fact from a piece by columnist Charles Lane: “A General Motors plant in Lordstown, Ohio, would have closed but for Obama’s rescue of the auto industry; Trump won the surrounding county by six points.” Obviously, something else is going on. Lane describes what economists call “compositional amenities,” which provide people in rural areas and small towns with a life “…where everyone speaks the same language, or everyone practices the same customs…” a life that is “…simpler, more predictable, less frictional.” It is a life offering a homogeneity valued “above the benefits of diversity – even above economic gains.” He goes on to cite a 2009 paper detailing the findings of a U.S.-British team of social scientists whose study discovered “that ‘compositional concerns’ rise as educational attainment falls.” It was not lost on Lane that Trump “… got himself elected President with overwhelming support from non-college-educated whites in smaller cities and rural counties by telling them he would build a wall on the Mexican Border, impose ‘extreme vetting’ on would-be immigrants and deport large numbers of the undocumented…”

We have to look at facts about the white vote. Others would have us look elsewhere. Those “others” include Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who – as was pointed out by Mehdi Hasan in The Intercept – both discount the degree to which bigotry rather than economic concerns was a motivating factor for a plurality of Trump voters. Perhaps neither of those two senators are familiar with studies that show this to be the case. In Vox, Philip Klinkner, a professor of political science at Hamilton College, wrote about his analysis of data from the American National Election Study. Klinkner writes that he, like other analysts, “…have found that support for Trump is rooted in animosity and resentment toward various minority groups, especially African Americans, immigrants, and Muslims.” For those who are not going to read Klinkner for themselves, the title of his article may be all they need to know of the study: “The easiest way to guess if someone supports Trump? Ask if Obama is a Muslim.”

Just two weeks before Klinkner’s article, Max Ehrenfreund and Scott Clement of The Washington Post wrote about their analysis of data from that organization and ABC News. They concluded that “…the results suggest that both economic and racial anxieties are driving supporters to Trump.” According to the two, Trump “…did particularly well among people who said they are struggling economically, with 40 percent of their support, and even better – 43 percent – among people who said that whites are losing out.” Does this mean that 43 percent of Trump supporters believe some Americans are losing out only because they are white and not as the result of a changing economy or inattentive politicians (or personal behavior)? Would it be wrong to assume the answer to that question is yes? After all, white resentment is an old and well-used sentiment/instrument/weapon, one that often has afflicted the nation’s politics and impeded its progress. Is there any reason to believe this was not proven once again in 2016?

Our wariness of the whims of some of our fellow citizens is added to when considering that 81 percent of white evangelical Christians, 60 percent of white Catholics and 61 percent of Mormons voted for Trump, leading some to raise questions about the very character of some white voters. One question was posed by columnist Colbert King who asked, “What is a Christian?” A practicing Christian himself, he did not dive into a diatribe against the religion or engage in a holier-than-thou sermon. He simply pointed out that the answer to his question is worth considering. He reminded readers it had been raised earlier in our lifetimes by the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” and that it had been white Christians who “…elected and reelected to public office some of the country’s most sexist, racist and religious bigots.”

Today, some voters think their support for a man like Trump has been vindicated (absolved?) because they assume he will appoint Supreme Court justices who will not recognize or respect a pregnant woman’s right to decide to not give birth. Now, nearly two years after the last elections, the nation will soon have to decide whether to begin the process of aborting the life Trump and his followers want to give us or taking it to term.

There is no reason to believe that the majority of whites who voted two years ago are representative of a majority of this country’s whites in general, but every reason to believe that an affirmation of the status quo will increase a general wariness.

Though they sometimes shouldn’t, people have a tendency to believe what they see.