I don’t think so. Here’s my argument: Some minorities are underrepresented in government. Many people believe that it is important to have a proportional number of representatives of your race in government. This belief is not racist; it simply assumes that having experienced life in the US as a minority, you will better understand the constituency of people with that same experience.
**Shodan **disagrees. He says this means having different rules for whites and blacks. It is in some sense true that the rules are different (I would call it racist for whites to vote for whites on the basis of race). However, it is because the same rationale doesn’t apply – whites aren’t underrepresented in government. Moreover, the two races have had very different histories which explain and justify different voting behavior.
I think the problem is one of reasons. If I say “Ethnic group X are all evil because of their ethinicity” clearly that would be a racist remark. I’m treating a group differently because of a characteristic they don’t actually have. OTOH, I can say “Ethnic group X generally have light skin” and not be racist, as long as it’s an accurate generalisation.
The situation in this case is one where one characteristic being judged is seperate from a characteristic of ethnicity. If I were to say “All black lawyers are evil, because all lawyers are evil” am I being racist? Someone might see that as being so, because i’m highlighting black lawyers in particular; yet, i’m not saying they’re bad because of their ethnicity, but because of their lawyerhood (not exactly much better, but stick with me). The implication of my statement is that I think lawyers of any ethnicity are bad.
So, this situation. If I were to say “I will only vote for black candidates, because they’re underepresented in government”, am I being racist? I would say not. The characteristic I am judging by (representation) is seperate from their ethnicity. Again, someone might suggest that by saying black candidates in particular i’m suggesting they alone should be voted for; but again the implication of my statement is not that i’d only vote for black candidates, but that I would vote for any candidate if I felt their group was underrepresented.
I think that you can legitimately vote for someone without being racist, sexist, whateverist, depending on which groups they’re in. Of course you could be prejudiced, but there are reasons which I at least would accept as being reasonable and not GroupX-ist.
Reading Shodan’s post, though, I think he’s more concerned about this for affirmative action-type reasons. If I understand him correctly, he doesn’t think that we should vote for people merely because they’re of a group that isn’t represented proportionally; rather, we should vote purely on terms of their character. Thus, if the only good, upstanding candidates were all of one group, we should vote for them anyway. It’s a good point. The only problem I have with it is that we don’t live in a perfect world, and I for one don’t think people will vote in terms of pure character issues. Voting candidates in terms of levelling the playing field allows us to start from a more reasonable proportion of people in power, rather than keeping things as is and waiting (what I would imagine to be a very long time) for people to do it themselves.
But also if we believe the proposition that being a member of a minority group means you’re able to represent that group better, then there is no clear line between character (in the sense of being a good representative) and race.
This came up in some Omaha race a few years ago. A black candidate vs a white candidate. Omaha is 13% black and the white won the vote, albeit in a close margin. Black leaders said “It looks like they voted by race”.
It turns out the white candidate got something like 65% of the white voters. The black candidate got 95% of the black voters.
The question here is whether there is a defensible double-standard for “voting by race.” What do you think? Was it racist for blacks to vote for the black candidate based on race?
its not racist, but it is prejudiced - since the candidate’s stand doesn’t matter (e.g. he would be the choice automatically, even if you had never heard his name or anything about his stand on issues)
It is a double standard, and I’m glad those were your words.
I believe your logic and reasoning is inherently racist. It is racist to consistently hold blacks to a lower standard----good intentioned or not. It is racist to assume that blacks have no more spin on the ball then to make their sole criteria the race of the candidate—not on the issues, not on policy, not on experience, not on voting record, not on track record, not on accomplishment, not on credentials, not on education—but simply because the candidate is black.
It is racist to make the statement that only a black can govern a black—that a white lawmaker cannot ‘understand’ the minority experience and therefore cannot govern in the interests of blacks. That is a racist reasoning. It’s particularly ironic that Obama is the source of this racist reasoning. He will receive 90+% of the black vote, in spite of the fact that his upbringing couldn’t be farther than the average black American. At least he’s black though, huh?
The argument isn’t that you represented better because you are of the same race. It’s that race is a proxy for having had the same types of experiences that accompany being a member of certain minority classes. And it isn’t saying that such a voter puts race above all. Just that, all else being equal, they prefer such a candidate for the above reason.
Nonsense. Name one race when all was equal. Every race has candidates with different educations, experiences, resumes, platforms and ideas.
“Race is a proxy for having had the same types of experiences that accompany being a member of certain minority classes”? More nonsense. That same logic should mean that blacks should hold no office where they are not at least 51% of the district. For how can a black lawmaker govern having not “experienced” life as an Anglo-Saxon?
Its a different standard, it isn’t a lower standard.
Do you not believe that growing up black/hispanic/etc. gives you a different set of experiences on which to base your judgments about policy?
ETA: I’m not saying race is the only proxy for similar experience. For example, all else being equal, I might vote for someone who has lived abroad because I think they will make policy judgments that will better reflect my own. I am saying that it is one proxy, and a valid one.
I really think both of you bring up some good points. I have the following disagreements, though:
I disagree with you in that I believe this is an example of discrimination. Rather than trying to determine whether or not the person can truly relate to people with the “same experience”, you’re assuming that they’re automatically qualified because of the color of their skin.
For example: A young man who has spent his entire life in a rundown part of town is preparing to vote for one of his state representatives. He wants to choose someone who can relate to his experiences, so that he can be reassured that the representative knows how dire these types of situations are.
Let’s assume that the young voter is a black man, and one of the representatives on the ballot is a black man. Should the voter assume that this representative automatically knows what it’s like to grow up in a high-crime, low-income area, just because he is black?
It’s completely possible that that person cannot actually relate to the voter’s experiences (maybe he grew up in an affluent neighborhood). Instead, let’s say that another representative on the ballot (a white female) has first-hand experience of what it’s like to grow up in a situation like that.
While it may have been an understandable assumption for the voter to make, it’s still a demonstration of discrimination. The focus was on the color of the person’s skin, rather than their actual experience.
I understand what you’re saying, but I think the implication of your statement is exactly the opposite of what you explained. Otherwise, why even bring up the concept of race?
For example (I’m in an example-y mood right now): I say that I don’t like way that fruits taste, in general. Then, I say that I don’t like the way that oranges taste, because oranges are a type of fruit. It logically makes sense, but the listener can’t help but wonder if I don’t like oranges maybe because of their tartness. Or maybe because they’re messy. (IOW, I don’t like any fruits, but maybe I have different reasons for different fruits.)
But it’s not separate from their ethnicity, because the two are intertwined in your argument. The question that I’m asking in this case is: what does it mean that black people are underrepresented? Obviously, the underrepresentation isn’t related so much to the skin color, but to some other type of factor (equal rights, low-income, etc.).
My point is that in all of these scenarios, race is serving as a facade for some other trait. IMHO, people should be placing their votes based on these particular traits, and not on race (or gender, etc.).
LilShieste
Highlighting mine.
We’ve spent the last 40 years telling ourselves that this proxy was wrong, that it hurt our country and remain[s] a blight on our conscience and collective experience.
We’ve spent the last 40 years trying to get past race, and to “look into the content of one’s character.” Yet you’re proposing that for blacks that somehow doesn’t apply.
I say that African Americans are a whole lot smarter than you give them credit for.
This still makes an assumption that everyone of one race is the same.
John Kerry and George Bush are a couple of blue-blood Yale graduates who are also white male. They would not do the same job of representing white males.
To assume that a black candidate would do a better job of representing than a white candidate (for a black voter) is racist in that it assumes that the black candidate and black voter are more alike than the white candidate and voter. To make that assumption you must make a blanket assumption about the characteristics of someone based on their race. That is racism.
I believe that that may sometimes be the case, but not always. It makes more sense to evaluate a person’s experiences based on their actual experiences, rather than what statistics might suggest their experiences were.
LilShieste
I’d have to turn the question around: is it therefore okay for white people to do this? It’s just as logical that a white candidate would share experiences with white voters. The fact that minorities are underrepresented - which is absolutely true and is a result of the country’s racist past - does not mean it’s okay to inflate their numbers by voting for them based on skin color.
Put simply, racism is judging people based on their race. If you just look at a candidate and say “he’s the same race as me, therefore he is more likely to understand me and act with my best interests in mind,” you are judging him based on appearance and it’s racist.
I’m sorry I don’t have time to reply to all the posts in this thread, but I’ll just address this most recent one.
The argument is that, whatever experience white people living in America have in common, those experiences are already well-represented in government. Whatever experiences black people have in common are not. Therefore it is OK to vote for a black candidate in order to increase that representation, but not to vote for a white candidate for the same reason.
I take some of you to be arguing that there is no such thing as a common black experience. I can’t really speak to that, but I’ve heard a lot of thoughtful black commentators say otherwise. That it is different to grow up in America as a black kid instead of a white kid. I don’t really have any basis on which to disagree, not having had that experience.
Marley23, do you believe in colorblind politics? We ought not have any sort of racial classifications?
ETA: I would add that I think the most prevalent form of racism is the sort of implicit associations identified by the famous Harvard IA test. This racism is based on skin color, not national origin, etc., which is why I’ve been using the term “black” instead of “African-American.” If one believes the results of this test, all people with certain skin characteristics would experience some of the subtle results of this racism in their life.
We’re not saying that there is no such thing as a “common black experience”, just that it’s not common among all black people. That is, there are some black people who may not have any idea of what you’re talking about. Because of this, it’s a mistake to simply assume that a candidate is personally familiar with the “common black experience”, just because they are black.
We need to identify which individual experiences are represented by the “common black experience”, and base our decisions on them. Not on some blanket factor.
LilShieste
That’s a blatant double-standard, though. And to apply it fairly, you’d have to come up with some definition of “well-represented.” If there are 12 black Senators, which I think is roughly proportional to the US population, is that fair? I almost never agree with Shodan, but he has a point about ‘equality of results.’
What’s happening here, and it happens frequently, is a confluence of race and class. Yes, I’m sure all black people experience racism in their lives, but the experience of a black child who grows up in the suburbs is not the same as the experience of one who grows up in a dying inner city. The two will have things in common, but I don’t know if a black person from the suburbs would do a better job than a white person from the same inner city.
I’m not sure what you mean here. Are you asking if I think we should eliminate things like affirmative action? The answer is no, I think those programs serve a purpose if used properly. If you’re asking what I think about race, I’ve said this before: it’s an illusion society believes in.