That doesn’t follow. If we’re going to insist that both are racist, it is still open to us to say that the first is racism that should be condemned while the second is permissible racism. In other words, we can condemn the first just because it is racist, while permitting the second because even though it is racist, there are other factors making the racism okay. Similarly, we can condemn Joe just because he killed someone, while saying it’s okay that James killed somebody, say, because it was self-defense. You might be tempted to say we wouldn’t condemn Joe “just because he killed somebody” but rather “Because he killed somebody and there were no mitigating factors making it okay.” But to say the latter is just to say, simply, that we’re condemning him just because he killed somebody.
Just because something counts as racist doesn’t necessarily make it condemnable. I don’t take the position that just because something meets the textbook definition of racism that means it’s always morally, ethically, and rationally wrong.
Blacks being biased towards the black candidate may be “racist”, but I don’t let semantics keep me from judging that differently than whites who outright hate black candidates.
Someone who does, however, take the position that just because something is racist that means it is horribly bad, can not use nuanced judgement.
Um…whatever you say chief. I’ve ‘seen the light’ all along here…and I think that you still don’t understand my position while I think I have a good handle on your own.
Your position can be summed up here:
You are building strawmen again. The nuance you decry others from not having is pretty much lost on you. To compare apples to apples here and burn through some of the straw, a good comparison would be:
‘Blacks who vote for other blacks simply because they are black’ <----> ‘Whites who won’t vote for a black simply because they are black’
vs
‘Blacks who vote for a black person for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the candidate is black’ <-----> ‘Whites who don’t vote for a black candidate for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the candidate is black’.
The first set is out and out racism…i.e. allowing ones decision to be predominantly influenced by race alone. The second set is more nuanced…while race is a factor it’s only one of many factors making up the final decision. In the first set there is no way the black voter would vote differently, regardless of the positions…and the same for the white voter. They will vote strictly based on race. In the second set both the black and white voter may very well vote differently, because race is only one factor among many and may only be the determining factor if both candidates are equally balanced in the mind of the voter.
You seeing any light here? It’s not like this is a new position in this thread…it just seems to be one that is hard for some to grasp.
If they’re actually saying this, I feel they’re wrong. But how is it sexist (or racist) to say that sexism or racism exist? They obviously do exist and many people are victimized by sexism or racism.
I think that’s what’s being examined here. There’s a line of thought that feels if you even mention you’re being affected because of race or sex, regardless of context or content…means you’re playing the dreaded ‘race card’ and are yourself a racist.
OK, here’s a question that may or may not shed some light on this issue. I don’t know the answer, but I’ll ask anyway:
Historically, in elections that involved a black running against a white, how have black voters apportioned their votes?
I haven’t looked it up, but I am thinking of the recent Maryland race for US Senate between Ben Cardin (D) and Michael Steele ®. Did Cardin win a majority of the black vote?
Are there other examples of this, tilted either way?
True. Sometimes people claim racism when it probably isn’t there and sometimes people deny racism when it probably is there. Reasonable people have to look at the situation and decide for themselves where the truth lies. Nobody is entitled to a free call - the ability to make a call for or against racism that other people are obligated to follow. Any claim should be open to questioning.
And I think we need to make a distinction between what’s a racial vote and what’s a racist vote. If people vote for a black candidate because they feel his or her election would diminish the amount of racism in America, then that’s clearly a racial reason for voting. But it’s not racist because diminishing racism is an issue that doesn’t favor any race and it’s one that all races can support. Voting for a black candidate because you feel his or her election will tilt the balance of power towards black people, on the other hand, is a racist reason (as would obviously also be the case for a white candidate).