I think it matters quite a bit, it’s the main premise of the article that is the basis for the thread. Here is where I think you need to define or at least clarify what you mean by white supremacist. Thus far you seem to use the term rather loosely, and the above post is a great example of that.
This nonchalant labeling really dilutes the message as far as I can see. Where before if someone laid the charge of white supremacism I would take serious notice, now I see it’s a catch all, vaguely defined in a squishy enough way that everything is white supremacism. Whereas before, a person who may have unconscious beliefs would be considered bias, now it’s white supremacism. Whereas before we may have a discussion of white privilege, that’s been set aside in favor of white supremacism. If the goal is to reduce the power of the term, to create rhetoric easier to ignore, then it’s working.
ISTM that you described a very plausible reason why an otherwise sane person would vote for Trump, and then tied it to white supremacism by making our hypothetical dad a racist. What if we removed the dad and the story was just “I’m gonna vote for him… and then later – Damn it, he didn’t do shit. I’m still unemployed. My town is sill a shit town”. Would that constitute embodying white supremacism?
Because it was an evidence-free conspiracy theory about a prominent black person, with overwhelming evidence against it, and yet it still gained traction with millions and millions of people, including many prominent politicians and pundits. I don’t believe that’s possible in a society without significant white supremacist influence.
I think Coates (and I) use the term, for the most part, to refer to society in general, in which several significant biases towards white people are programmed in. That society, in general, treats white people as superior and more deserving of decent treatment (along with things like the benefit of the doubt, courtesy, assumptions about honesty, etc.).
If he’s surprised that a black person is capable of being very smart? Perhaps. At the very least this is a person who has been strongly influenced by the white supremacism in society.
This is consistent with my understanding of how you and Coates are using the term. I think it’s a poor definition. It’s poor because it is so nebulous, encompassing things in general, without boundary. Sure it will include those who think white people are inherently superior and should dominate other races, supportive of the days of lynching and slavery, but it also seems to include instances of disparate impact, and even opposition to reparations.
Like the Coates article, it’s a catch all label to shut down opposing or parallel conversation. There could be a variety of reasons for various things, but if any of it is race related, then under the rubric you use the expanding reach of white supremacism crowds out all else and what’s left is the new godwin. Coates may like the term because it speaks his truth, but it’s terribly ineffective in persuasion.
I’m not sure why you think that’s not possible. We have seen conspiracy theories about how the Clinton’s killed Vince Foster, Bush did 9/11, and the DNC was running a trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor. Obama being a secret Kenyan Muslim doesn’t seem to be any different.
True, Coates doesn’t address these facts specifically. But, he does consistently argue that Trump, the man, explicitly embodied whiteness as the “core of his power,” in ways that Romney did not. To me, this explains well the “estimated eight and a half million…” thing Packer mentioned.
That “weird statistic,” though, admittedly does seem odd. If Coates were to take this on (maybe he has, elsewhere), I’m guessing he might mention how Hilary Clinton failed to embody *non-*whiteness in a way that Obama did.
It’s the ultimate* in “othering” (*at least in terms of questioning basic Presidential qualifications). If you don’t get it, maybe you’re lucky enough to never had been “othered.”
I don’t think it’s meant to shut down opposing conversation at all. I think you have a bit a of a knee-jerk reaction to this topic. I’ve engaged pretty much every opposing viewpoint in this thread, and I’m pretty sure I haven’t insulted or personally attacked anyone. How come we can’t just disagree on these things, or see them differently – why does my motivation (or Coates’ motivation) have to be to shut down opposing viewpoints? Is it really that unlikely that we just see things quite differently, but are trying the best we can to explain our viewpoints and understand those of the other side?
Maybe it’s not the best way to persuade those who don’t already accept the significant power of white supremacism (or bigotry, or racism, or bias, or whatever you’d prefer to call it) in our society at large, but not every article is meant for that. I’m doing the best I can to explain these things as I understand them, but maybe I could do better. I appreciate any and all attempts to engage, even when we disagree.
I’m pretty sure I’ve stated this before, but I’ll do so again – I don’t believe everyone who disagrees with me on this is a racist, a white supremacist, etc. And even those folks with some racist or white supremacist views aren’t all evil, or all lost forever, or necessarily unreachable. I knew guys in the Navy who routinely said racist things (including racial slurs) but still actually risked their bodies and their lives to assist other sailors (including black and brown sailors) who were in danger. Human beings are fucking complicated and weird. That doesn’t mean that I’m not going to call out racism, white supremacism, and related phenomena and ideologies, which I truly believe have done by far the most damage to America and to Americans, and which I believe continue to do by far the most damage to America and Americans in the present and are the greatest threat in the future. This is America’s original sin, and we’re still doing it as a country, even if we’re a lot better than we used to be.
For all those conspiracy theories, only one consistently made it into national politics, including House representatives, and only one was behind the rise of a national party’s Presidential candidate, and only one was spread by a party’s president who never apologized for spreading such bullshit for years. And it’s not just Trump. Romney wasn’t a birther, but he still reached out to birthers like Trump. Boehner and McConnell could have criticized birthers like they criticized Obama and other Democrats, but they didn’t. Birtherism was accepted and tolerated among national Republicans, unlike these other conspiracy theories.
Yes, we would never, for example, see a congressman lead a congressional investigation into Vince Foster’s death or “prove” it by shooting a pumpkin.
I’m pretty sure I can tie any of these conspiracy theories to a type of discrimination. That doesn’t mean they are driven by white supremicism. The fact that (at least) the last couple presidents have had worse conspiracy theories than those against Obama is strong evidence that birtherism is nothing special.
I don’t think that gained anywhere close to the national attention and tolerance of the Republican party. There certainly was never a Republican presidential candidate who was very successful after spending years spreading Foster conspiracy theories, and I don’t think there could have been. Further, birtherism was a direct attack on Obama’s identity as an American. None of the others were about the identity of the target, and I don’t think it’s coincidence that the most successful evidence-free conspiracy theory against any modern President was an identity conspiracy theory about the first black president.
I’m not commenting on your motivation. I’m commenting on my reaction and I how I perceive the argument. I’m telling you, and Coates if he’s reading, that it’s ineffective. So we can disagree, and certainly do. That’s fine. I’m saying what is being done, it’s not working, and it’s incorrect as well.
I do think the term is meant to be more inflammatory than racial bias for example. Imagine a state that criminalizes sex with a minor even if both parties are minors. Say, a 17 year old and a 15 year old, or an 18 year old and a 16 year old. Is that the same as a 35 year old who has sex with a 5 year old? I don’t think so, one may be statutory rape, and the other child molestation. If we call both perpetrators pedophiles, I think we lose something. Calling every reaching instance that has racial implications white supremacy, that’s about the same as calling the 17 year old a pedophile for having sex in their long term relationship with their 15 year old partner. If we want to speak out about pedophilia, the 17 year old should not be the poster child to do so.
And I’m sure if Clinton’s and Obama’s races were swapped you’d be telling us how the congressional and independent investigations were unprecedented. It’s clear that, like other conspiracy theorists, your mind is made up. Any new fact or argument just results in a shifting of the goal posts or an entirely new argument.
They (Rove and the Kremlin) spread evidence-free conspiracy theories about a prominent *Female *person, with overwhelming evidence against them, and yet they still gained traction with millions and millions of people.
It’s all to do with the Rove hate machine. Sure, the GOP is happy to use the white supremacists, but it’s all about winning at any cost, not racism.
It’s pretty clear that Coates has first drawn his curve and then afterwards tries to fit some data points. It’s bad enough that he’s included things in there that are not necessarily about race, but he even included something that was “reported”. If we call everyone who might be racist a white supremacist, then that term loses its meaning and we have to create a new word for people who not only have racist beliefs, but who literally want to, at best, return to the days of Jim Crow or, at worst, want to kill and/or deport all non-whites.
We might as well refer to Trump’s politics as “genocidal” and just call it a day.