A miserable argument. People have been lynched, mobbed, beaten, burned, raped, tortured, hanged, beheaded, buried alive, scalped, shot, stabbed, framed, and otherwise subjected to everything from harrassment to death throughout history for no reason other than having a certain skin color or faith or worldview, or belonging to some group or perceived group that the mob hated, distrusted, or reviled. And quite many of them have been white on white. The extreme right has it out for what it perceives as White Race Traitors and the extreme left has it out for what it perceives as Privileged Whites. Possibly the most racist mindset of all is one that maintains that racism is possible only from White to Other because that pins racism on — of all things, ironically — race. Racism is not the product of a particular race; it is a product of a particularly small mind.
I don’t think it’s been noted yet that this study, at best, only examines individual preferences, not actions or reactions. Additionally, I should note that the method of selection is awkward. The system deliberately sets you up to fail in matching, on the assumption that this would “reveal the truth” by comparing mistakes on one side versus the other.
I’m not certain this assumption holds.
Indeed, Jesse Jackson might well have failed this test, what with his “I hope those are white people behind me” comment some time back.
Point #1) Whites make up the majority. It makes more sense to focus on the majority because they have the most influence at the polls. Notice that the study also failed to account for anti-Asian bias among Latinos. Ain’t no mystery why that would be.
Point #2) Given history, we should not expect that anti-white bias is proportionate to anti-black bias. Whites were never treated like blacks were. There was never a goverment-sanctioned system of oppression directed toward whites. They, as a group, have never been viewed as less than human or less deserving of civil liberties or less than the beauty ideal. Historically, society has treated whiteness as virtue, while stigmatizing blackness. Anti-black bias that has implications to how blacks are treated by law enforcement is evident today, as this cite and this cite demonstrate.
Can anyone provide any cites that show that anti-white bias has major implications for white people? Does negative bias affect where whites are able to live or work, like it affects black people? In what way does anti-white bias affect sentencing of whites? Is it any way comparable to that experienced by blacks? What about treatment in media? Does anti-white bias play a role in the reporting of white missing persons, like it likely does for blacks?
I mean, I understand the desire to see blacks as no different than whites when it comes to racial biases. It appeals to the notion that whites aren’t some inherently evil people with devil horns on their head. But realistically…come on now! All this hand-wringing over anti-white bias is pretty pathetic. I can name over a dozen reasons why there would be anti-black bias. Most of those reasons relate to history, but it also doesn’t hurt that there are significantly fewer blacks than whites in this country. Negative bias tends to be strongest against the group that is fewer in number.
The fact that this study did not look at anti-white bias among blacks strikes me as a pretty trivial concern.
Not if you interpret the results as this thread title has. That conclusion is misleading at best, dishonest at worst. Yes, Balcks make up a minority in the US, but 90% of Black voters vote Democratic in the presidential election, making them a significant portion of the Democratic party. By ignoring that part of the electorate, you are skewing the results.
I can’t disagree with any of that, but it has nothing to do with how a scientific study should be run-- and I’m assuming that this is supposed to be a scientific study.
This isn’t about which group can claim the most historical wrongs committed against it. I don’t think anyone will dispute that Blacks “win” that contest hands down. This is about measuring racial bias in the electorate. If you ignore a significant part of the electorate, you skew the results. I’m not claiming anything more or less than that.
Some early American Irish and Italian immigrants might have begged to differ.
Is anti-gay bias among blacks equally as trivial a concern? Is it forgiven by their lesser numbers and the historical stigma of homosexuality?
Actually, a scientific study should be concerned with determining a particular outcome in a particular situation. Since I am not sure that we have identified the actual purpose of the study, it remains possible that it was intended only to discover aspects of the white population–not out of an effort to do anything nefarious, but simply because that did not happen to be the goal of some specific and narrowly focused research.
In general, I think the first few posts in this thread were pretty fair–and then we got invaded by the apologists and accusers and screamers and hand-wringers and I see this thread going straight to hell in a handbasket (or down the well-worn trail of hurled epithets that all its predecessors traveled).
Okay, I see what you are saying. To be technically accurate, the question answered should read “Are white Republicans voters more likely to show anti-black bias?” This study doesn’t tell us much about Republicans or Democrats as a whole, only a subset.
I think the biggest bias in this study is that there doesn’t even seem to be a pretense that participants are selected at random. For all we know, internet savvy Republicans may be disproportionately of the Stormfront.com persuasion. We just don’t know. Furthermore, and maybe its just me, but I always question the validity of tests that purport to measure bias. The “right” answer usually seems obvious, and it could simply be that Democrats are more skilled test takers because of age/socioeconomic/educational disparities between them and their Republican counterparts.
Perhaps the problem is with the interpreation of the study, as I mentioned in the first part of my post-- the conclusion (per this thread title) that “racist” is defined by anti-Black bias by Whites, but not by anit-White bias by Blacks. Maybe the researchers intended only to study the attitudes of White voters, but the article sure isn’t written that way. At any rate, I don’t accept that this study shows Republicans are more racist than Democrats for the reasons I’ve stated. Those are valid reasons, and anyone trying to draw that conclusion from this study is ignoring the inherent limitations of the data.
I think this has been a pretty level-headed debate. There’s one contentious exhchange going on, but most of it is very civil.
Now tell me how these groups were oppressed because they are white (and not because of their nationality/ethnicity/immigrant status) and then maybe this will have some revelance to what I posted.
No, but then again, that question doesn’t follow from what I wrote.
But this one does: Is anti-straight bias among gays a trivial concern? Should we devote as much time looking at anti-straight bias as we do looking at anti-gay? I say no.
It’s because they were the wrong kind of white. Just like the previously referenced White Race Traitors and Privileged Whites. Why not also say that blacks were oppressed not because they were black, but because they were of African descent? Frankly, it is unclear why the picayune distinctions matter — why prejudice against skin color is any more odious than prejudice against national origin or religious faith.
I say you’re shuffling your feet. There is strong anti-gay bias in the black community. Doubtless, you will attribute the bias to their religion rather than their race. And doubtless, in every case — except for the case of so-called “whites” — you will attribute racism and prejudice to something other than the race of the bigots.
As I said before, there can hardly be a more racist assertion than that only certain races can be racist.
If there is one thing both Republicans and Democrats can come together on it’s that their own party isn’t subject to partisan bias.
But they were not oppressed because of their whiteness, dude. Why do you think this point is nothing but mere semantics? The white American ruling class oppressed Italians and Irishmen. Blacks were not behind that. Maybe the elite justified it by saying those groups were actually non-white; but if so, that actually furthers my point that whites, as a group, have never been systematically oppressed in this country.
Does simply saying that there is a definitional difference between African-American oppression and Irish-American oppression mean that I’m saying one is worse than the other?
Yeah, and so what? (Since I answered your question I fail to see how I’m shuffling my feet.) I never said there wasn’t bias. There probably is. But its presence or absence has zero relevance to anything that I’ve written. I’m surprised that you don’t understand that, as I would expect you to have a better grasp on the concept of analogy.
I’ll ask you this one more time, though: Isn’t anti-straight bias among gays a trivial concern? Should we devote as much time looking at anti-straight bias as we do looking at anti-gay?
Bolding mine.
Doubtless, this is the most ironic thing I’m going to see all day. Which is saying a lot since Bush is speaking tonight.
A nitpick: if you believe that race as seen by racists is a purely social construct, then the attacks on Irish and Italian immigrants weren’t because they were the wrong kind of white: it’s because they weren’t white at all in the view of the racists.
Of course, once you accept that race is a social construct, then it does call into question such ideas as that racism can only go from whites toward blacks: I think that idea causes far more problems than it solves, and oughtta be chucked.
Daniel
It’s not trivial when it systematically distorts the study. Given the fact (can we stipulate it, or must I bore people with cites) that blacks skew heavily Democratic, counting white racism against blacks but not black racism against whites is naturally going to skew the results in favor of finding more racism among Republicans.
Suppose we re-frame the question as, “Is there more anti-black racism among white Republicans than among white Democrats?” Would you agree that is a salient question to ask, irrespective of any anti-white racism among black Dems? And would you agree that we can reliably answer it in the affirmative?
I don’t think the study question was as simple as “Who is the most racist: Reps or Dems?” The researchers were specifically testing for anti-black bias.
I could understand a liberal anti-white bias, and yes, I am a liberal too. And a white-honky-boy.
There is a large chuck of the Dallas City Council that is black. And some of these people are just racist as hell (in my and my black friend Kyron’s opinion.)
Maybe Lonesome Polecat was getting at that kind of bias.
My “hypothesis”? What hypothesis did I have? I was just questioning Lonesome Polecat’s rather vague and poorly argued attack on this study.
As for the 1% of Americans who are most racist against whites, I’m sure that they voted overwhelmingly for Kerry (or Nader). So? I’m not trying to deny that.
Agree or disagree: Among whites Republicans, anti-black racism is more common than it is among white Democrats?
Note, by the way, that agreeing with that statement (which seems awfully certain to be true… certainly someone would have to produce a darn fine study to convince me otherwise) doesn’t mean that all, or even most, or any specific, Republicans are racist. Nor does it invalidate the positions of the Republican party, on issues related to race or otherwise. Similarly, I suspect that giving money to shady organizations that claim to be Palestinian charities but are actually at least vaguely linked to Palestinian terror groups is more common among Democrats than Republicans. So? If someone produced a study saying so, I wouldn’t go into a tizzy and say “ahh, but what about groups that vaguely linked to, uhh, BASQUE terror groups, huh huh huh what about them?”.
Anyhow, on the general (and interesting) topic of anti-black vs. anti-white racism, I think it’s quite silly to say that anti-white racism is impossible. Clearly it’s possible. Clearly it occurs. BUT, there’s a serious question of how (a) widespread and (b) damaging this racism is. How many white people aren’t allowed to move into neighborhoods of their choice because of their race? How many are looked at with extra suspicion by the police? How many have to work extra hard to prove that they are literate and decent to begin with? And whatever you might say about white liberals who have anti-white bias, how many white people are going to be upset when their son or daughter brings a white date home?
While I agree that it’s silly to deny the conceivable existence of anti-white racism, I also think anti-white racism is close to being a non-issue.
As you with the face has cleverly pointed out, it’s almost certainly the case that there is some amount of anti-straight bias among gay people. But should we wring our hands about it and refuse to discuss homophobia without also (in the interest of being fair and balanced) discussing heterophobia?
Agreed. Race is certainly a social construct, but it is also a cultural construct, an historical construct, and a forensic construct. The bone (pun!) that I’m picking with You With The Face is that he seems to be saying that the only prejudice of any significance is white on black racism. But the dialog is going nowhere since everything I say to him is countered with a side-step and a claim that I’m not addressing his points. Oddly, however, he keeps engaging me in what he apparently considers to be my monologue.