That side of the debate seems fixated on preponderances as though they were significant. Just because black on black crime is far more preponderant than white on black crime, that does not mean that blacks are a criminal race and whites are a civilized one. The mistake with reasoning from the general to the particular in a “study” like this is that by accepting its onerous conclusion, you will prejudice yourself against individuals who do not deserve it. “He’s a Republican voter; therefore, he is more likely to be a racist” is a damnable fallacy.
You are arguing a strawman. She (she’s a “she”, btw) didn’t say white-on-black racism was the only prejudice of any significance. She said that white-on-black racism is more important than black-on-white racism, simply because of the power differential. It’s more important to discuss white-on-black racism in a discussion of the American electorate because nowhere does the power differential become more salient than in the political realm. You are twisting her words.
You haven’t address her points. She asked you an illustrative question, and she’s still waiting for you to answer. That’s why the dialogue isn’t progressing.
Since you seem to be ignoring her, I’ll pick at you for a moment. Using the Irish and Italian bigotry as an example, if we wanted to find out the degree of anti-Irish/Italian bigotry among American citizens, would our study need to survey Irish and Italian immigrants in order to be thorough? That’s you with the face’s point. The study in the OP appears to be focused specifically on white Americans to assess specifically anti-black racism. If the researchers wanted to assess homophobia in the black community, they would have conducted a totally different study.
Aren’t they, at least some of the time? If we’re not trying to Prove Ironclad Points, but just to discuss the state of society, and if I could demonstrate that (say) anti-Asian racism caused 2000 deaths a year, whereas anti-Hispanic racism caused two nosebleeds and some hurt feelings a year, wouldn’t it make more sense to be more concerned about anti-Asian racism than anti-Hispanic racism? Which doesn’t mean we ignore or discount the latter, but if we’re deciding where to invest time and money and effort, it’s an easy choice.
Or, to quote myself, “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.”
Here are two yes/no questions for you:
(1) Is the average white Repulican voter more or less likely to be anti-black-racist than the average white Democratic voter?
(2) Is anti-black racism a bigger problem in the US today than anti-white Racism?
But it’s not just “preponderance” that makes anti-black bias more deserving of attention. The implications of such bias are also different. Many blacks probably do harbor anti-white bias, but what does that bias look like? Is it the kind of bias that leads to innocent folks getting shot by cops? Is it the kind of bias that results in erroneous assumptions being made about a white person’s intelligence? Is it the kind of bias that makes it harder for a white juvenile deliquent to get a second chance?
What is the socioeconomic fallout that could potentially result from the negative biases commonly held against whites? If blacks became the numerical majority tomorrow, what kind of things should whites be worried about? Being put in the remedial track at school? Being stopped by police for “driving while white”? Being followed in retail stores? All of these things are what blacks have to be on the look out for.
In my experience, the things people negatively assume about whites tends to be a lot better than what they assume about blacks.
According to FBI statistics, anti-black hate crimes is 3 times what anti-white hate crimes. Anti white hate crimes are the second most prolific. I think it’s ignorance and/or anti-white racism that makes people want to focus on one to the exclusion of the other. Racism is bad no matter who it comes from, or who the victim is. And racism against whites is bad enough that it should not be ignored, or trivialized. Pooh-poohing it just makes people think it’s socially acceptable.
I don’t think anyone is saying that racism against blacks isn’t a problem. Fighting anti-black racism has become one of the largest institutions in the country. However, there are way too many people who think it’s the only racism that matters.
(a) Hate crimes are perhaps the most visible and dramatic manifestation of racism, but also very important are things like employment discrimination, racial-profiling-by-police, etc.
(b) Why can’t we have a discussion about anti-black racism without giving equal time to anti-white racism?
The premise of this whole debate was that Republicans are more likely to be racist. When those that rightly point out that that is a flawed conclusion if you base racism only against blacks then we get the same crap you posted in (a), that somehow only racism against blacks that matters. I just don’t get this mindset that you people can’t get the fact through your heads that anyone can be racist. And anyone can discriminate towards any race. You can’t fight racism and at the same time chose to elevate one race above the others no matter how well your intentions may be. It’s hypocritical and counterproductive. Anti-black racism is NOT the only racism that matters. Got it?
Your experience is interesting, but why is it any more valid than mine? You shot down my experience without a moment’s hesitation and without any substantive rebuttal other than to say that I’m not hearing you right. You uneqivocally stated that “There was never a goverment-sanctioned system of oppression directed toward whites.” When I pointed out the travails of Irish and Italian immigrants (I could have provided more groups), you did not retract your blanket assertion, but instead began a picayune dissection of what you meant by “race” and whether they qualified as white.
You’ve ignored the examples of White Race Traitors and Privileged Whites. And now you’ve disqualified preponderances from consideration even though you yourself raised them. Moreover, you’ve established some sort of subjective scale of negativity upon which you’ve hoisted blacks above whites. You made a list of what blacks have to watch out for in white neighborhoods, but no corresponding list of what whites have to watch out for in black neighborhoods.
Do you honestly believe that a white person sauntering down the sidewalk in an urban black community will be greeted with bright smiles of appreciation and positive affirmations of his or her whiteness? Do you honestly think that, with rare exceptions, white boys on the basketball team are anything more than bench warmers and the brunts of jokes? The more you try to pin racism on a specific race, the more ridiculous your argument becomes. That is because of a metaphysical imperative: it is impossible to formulate a statement about racism eminating from one race over another without the statement itself being racist.
What experience are you talking about?
Of course, when you read the statement in context, you would know that the argument I was presenting wasn’t as simplistic as you are portraying it. In the sentence immediately following the one you just quoted I wrote: "They [white people], as a group, have never been viewed as less than human or less deserving of civil liberties or less than the beauty ideal. "
The oppression of European immigrants is a red herring, not only because of their race but also because of who their oppressors were (white people!). At least in the case of Italians, they weren’t even viewed as white anyway, so you’re actually not supporting your case by mentioning them.
Because they are not germane to the discussion. Why is it anti-white to say that whites have privilege that others do not by dint of race? You have failed to argue your position. And can you please elaborate more on these White Race Traitors? I have no idea about what you are talking about.
Please. I did not. You are mischaracterizing my position once again. Poor form.
I specifically asked the reading audience to supply their own list because I don’t know what one would look like. Why should I do your work for you? State your own case.
Why should a white person be greeted with “positive affirmations of his or her whiteness”? I don’t expect the same as a black person. I just want to be treated like everyone else.
I’ve known plenty of white guys who played on predominately black teams and performed well on the court and on the football field. They were not rare exceptions either.
But I’ll gladly accept this as one of the things white people should be on the look out for when the Revolution comes. Basketball is certainly not a trivial matter.
How about if a white kid is attacked and beaten by more than a dozen attackers on a school bus because he’s white, something that happened to the child of one of my friends? What about the parents who move out of a majority black neighborhood because their kids are being threatened and harassed at school and nobody seems to want to do anything about it?
How about if a white guy on his way to work is attacked and beaten by a couple of drunken blacks who followed him for two blocks shouting things like, “Come back here, you white motherfucker, we’re gonna beat your ass”? Or having rocks and bottles thrown at you while passing through a black neighborhood, or “walking while white?” This is what happened to me.
What about the more or less automatic assumption on the part of many blacks that every white person is racist? That the guy behind the desk at the library who won’t let you renew a video is doing it just because he’s “racist” and then trying to get him fired? Or the black worker who denies a white worker a well-deserved and badly needed promotion by threatening to sue, even though the white worker is clearly much better qualified? What about the supervisor or co-worker who lives with the knowledge that a gratuitous accusation of racism can derail his career?
Your attitude that anti-white racism is a non-issue is nothing short of bizarre.
She didn’t say it was a non-issue. The only thing that’s bizarre is that you inferred that “attitude” from her post.
If you and Liberal can’t debate this topic fairly, why bother posting at all?
Nonsense. Who says that ideology can’t count as racism, or that people who express racist opinions are “excused” from being called racist? Not me.
I’m just saying that I don’t think there’s a significant amount of racism of the unconscious, implicit-bias sort that is the focus of the test described in the OP experienced against white people, by white people. No matter how liberal or radical they may be.
Maybe jsgoddess’s experience proves me wrong, but I still doubt that her experience is significant among all white people taking the test.
You’re trying to twist my words around to make it seem as though I’m saying that only Republicans can be racist, which I’m not. I’ve already agreed with and supplemented your example of white liberals expressing racism of the conscious, ideological sort against whites. (And I would also like to point out that plenty of white liberals test positive for racism of the unconscious, implicit-bias sort against blacks, too.)
I apologize if my first few posts in the thread gave the impression that I thought white people could never express bias of any kind against whites. That’s not what I meant (in fact, it’s such an absurd notion that I don’t see how anybody could have imagined that it’s what I meant), and I think my last several posts have amply clarified my meaning.
However, you jumped to conclusions, misinterpreted what I was actually saying, and are now trying to cover your butt by accusing me of using “jargon” and “nit-picking” and “linguistic game-playing”. Cut it out.
Because ignoring the issue is monstrously unjust to the many victims of anti-white racism. Because focusing exclusively on white racism against blacks or non-whites presents an extremely distorted picture of racial issues in America. Because when the left ignores or denies the very real problem of anti-white racism not only among blacks but among many white liberal and radicals, they seriously alienate many people who might otherwise listen to them and give the Republicans a huge advantage all neatly gift-wrapped with a pretty ribbon. Because ignoring, denying or trivializing the reality of the issue of anti-white racism and violence against whites evokes contempt among those of us who have seriously suffered from it–and there are a lot more of us around than the left likes to admit.
Nonsense. You couldn’t resist jumping all over me for saying that we didn’t know if the Susan Sontag brand of racism occurred at a statistically significant level among people on her side of the political spectrum. When asked what made you so sure this was negligible, all we got was a volley of personal impressions, opinion and “ISTM”. As in your latest post:
From the Division of Get-A-Clue: Your personal beliefs are not a substitute for valid evidence, and are not a sturdy platform for attacking others who are undecided on a particular issue.
The word games do not help your cause either. Stick to the subject.
HIJACK.
To Those Who Have Gone On Before:
I’m trying to cut down on my “race” posts. We seem to rehash a lot of the same ground, and I’m not convinced anyone’s actually reading each other’s posts with an open mind anymore, or even looking over cites properly.
Seriously, Dopers: did anyone besides me actually read that article jsgoddess linked in the OP?
The title of this thread is highly misleading. Nowhere in the article does it say “Republicans voters are more likely to be racist.”
It used the terms “racial bias” “anti-black prejudice” “implicit bias” “hidden bias” “more difficulty associating black faces with positive concepts than white.”
NONE of these terms equate with racism. Words like those, and words like “discrimination” are used as synonymnous with racism – and they aren’t! As I have said before, they indicate some possible racism. They clearly point to bias, prejudice and bigotry. But this is not the same thing as racist. Racism is an extreme, discredited ideology of a heirarchy of races.
If your mindset tends to lump blacks in one category reserved for suspicion and disdain or exclusionary treatment, more or less excluding Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans from the equation, technically you are not being a racist. You have a deep-rooted prejudice, possibly an entrenched bigotry. If you’re black and you do the same thing to whites, same thing again.
The article also stated that it remains to be seen how significant it is to correlate the ties between racial bias and political affiliations are. My guess is, a minor, casual racial bias may not mean much with regard to party affiliation or bigoted attitudes. The article stated both conservatives and liberals had difficulty associating black faces with positive concepts. Not surprising, since black leadership has really only been experienced in urban centers on local and statewide levels. But if you are VERY resistant to the idea of positive black accomplishments, you are most likely more comfortable with white leadership their accomplishments and are therefore very likely conservative and Republican – and only possibly racist.
An antiblack bias is NOT the same thing as racist. You cannot have a study of racism that only looks at anti-black or anti-white bias — at best, you’ll test prejudice towards one group.
Racist is used in so broad a context these days it’s ridiculous. Whatever happened to bigot?
Please go on arguing, though. The invasion “by the apologists and accusers and screamers and hand-wringers” and their “hurled epithets” is very entertaining. Let’s not forget the hot-buttered snark. Mmmm-mmm.
What you said was that “I don’t think we can know” whether Susan Sontag would exhibit the unconscious, implicit-bias sort of racism against whites. (Yeesh. Are you deliberately misquoting yourself so that you can accuse me of nitpicking when I correct you?)
What I think is “negligible”, as I’ve said about a dozen times now, is the likelihood that a significant number of white people (liberal or otherwise) experience implicit bias against whites. Why I talk about this in terms of “personal impressions” and “ISTM” because I’m talking about my opinion, and explaining why this opinion seems reasonable to me.
If you have facts to disprove my opinion, present them. If you disagree with it, go ahead and disagree. But quit complaining just because what I’m expressing is an opinion.
I’m not “attacking” anybody who holds a different opinion from mine on this issue, but I am disagreeing with them. I can’t understand why this is putting such a hair up your butt. As I said back in post #48, “Yes, we’re debating opinions here; so what?”
If you don’t think mere opinion on this subject is worth talking about, then by all means feel free to stop talking about it.
It’s clear that we are not talking about the same things because I’m talking about bias and you are talking about crimes motivated by race-hate. Notice that in the none of the manifestations of anti-black bias that I have described have I mentioned anything about assault being directed towards blacks because of their race. I’ve said nothing about the KKK and neo-nazi skinheads, either. Gee, wonder why I neglected to do that? It’s not because that stuff isn’t a big deal; it’s because bias operates on a different level than outright hatred. Talking about the two in the same discussion muddies the waters.
Before anyone calls me a denier, let me say this: Blacks do commit hate crimes against whites. But acknowledging that doesn’t address the question of what form anti-white bias would likely take if blacks were the numerical majority.
I agree that many blacks do take the position that whites are racist until proven otherwise. This perception, if left unchallenged, could lead to signficant levels of discrimination if those perceptions are acted upon, especially by a numerical majority.
But I’d also stipulate that if blacks were the majority (and had a proportionate amount of power), this particular bias would probably not be a very prominent one. Many blacks have that reactive “all whites are racists” prejudice precisely because they are a minority and feel stigmatized. If they found themselves in a world where there were many more black librarians than white ones, they’d be used to a brown face denying them renting privileges and therefore, probably would not automatically scream racism when a white one did it.
Again, before anyone calls me a denier, I only say this to put the issue in context. Not to “pardon away” anything.
My “attitude” is that anti-white bias is not on par with anti-black bias. And please pay more attention to the words that I use. I tend to stay away from the word racism because it means different things to different people. “Bias” is a lot more precise of a term and that’s why I’m using it.
No, I can depend on you to misquote me. What I said (and what apparently drove you to distraction) was this:
If you want to twist yourself into knots explaining about the key differences between unconscious/conscious/ideological/Republican/Democratic sorts of racism, have a blast. Just don’t put words in my mouth.
And we know how vital you think your opinions and feelings are. But if you’re going to cluck about the fallibility of online surveys and the need for valid studies (as you did in your opening post, and I agree with you there), don’t turn around later and suggest that ISTM is a valid basis for drawing conclusions.
This is GD. And you know better.
Askia, whatever you do, please don’t stay out of these discussions. Don’t forget that you are the one who, with your compelling arguments and sound analysis, changed my mind on the issue of racism. Though it may seem otherwise from time to time, you are not pissing in the wind. Your contribution above is typical of the level of excellence you bring to these discussions. Thank you.
When I’m discussing the validity of a published study that purports to show scientific evidence for a particular factual assertion, then I think it’s appropriate to point out the importance of methodological rigor.
When I’m discussing my own opinions, on the other hand, then “ISTM” is all the justification I need.
Sorry if you don’t like that, but as noted above, you’re under no obligation to discuss my opinions with me.