It’s funny. I am not, as claimed above “just tired of being called racist all the time” since I’m rarely called a racist at all. But in this thread where someone is whining about being called a racist all the time, I might be called a racist.
“I’m tired of being called a racist, so I’ll call you a racist.”
It’s so Pee-Wee Hermanesque.
So if we just don’t talk about it, it will go away? If we just stop talking about race, all the people who have lost opportunities for jobs, promotions, or housing will suddenly find that they have acquired fantastic jobs with wonderful accommodations? If we just stop talking about race, Louis Farrakhan will shrivel up and blow away? All the people who accused the Katrina victims trapped in the Superdome of being savages will offwer their apologies and will begin treating everyone they meet with an open attitude of welcome and brotherhood? Ray nagin will begin to take his job seriously and work to improve all the aspects of his city instead of making silly remarks about being chocolate?
Somehow I am not persuaded that that will happen.
In the “White People in Denial” thread I made an analogy about two guys going into an emergency room. One has a toothache and one had his arm torn off by a bear. The staff will all rush over to give their attention to the second guy. That doesn’t mean the first guy doesn’t have an actual medical problem or that they’re prejudiced against him. It’s an acknowledgement that having an arm torn off is a more serious condition then a toothache.
And that’s how I feel about complaints about white people being the victims of racism. Sure it can happen in some situations. But stop whining about your toothache to the guy who’s missing an arm.
Look at the numbers alone. Let’s assume that black people and white people are equally racist as individuals. There are approximately ten times as many white people in this country as there are black people. This means that there are ten white people to be racist towards every black person and only one black person to be racist towards every ten white people. Now do the math - a black person will receive one hundred times as much racism as a white person.
Eight times. 12% is 1/8 of 100.
I wonder if it also takes a different form. When I worked in an elementary school classroom, I don’t think I ever heard any anti-black speech, although there were some pretty hinky racial things going on (e.g., the all-white composition of the academically gifted classes, which did not match my experience of the students’ intellectual abilities). I did hear several black students make anti-white comments, though, ranging from declaring they did not like white girls to telling anti-white racist jokes.
The anti-black racism seems to take the form of fear toward black people and a contempt for their intelligence and work ethic. The anti-white racism seems to be a hostility toward white people and a contempt for their honesty and aesthetic judgment.
That, of course, is a huge generalization :).
Daniel
Good timing raindog I was going to start a thread that asked a question about racism and hate crime after I saw this article from earlier this year, wondering why such a horrible thing WOULDN’T be a hate crime. The wiki article quotes the Police Chief from Knoxville who says " There is absolutely no proof of a hate crime" I take exception to that assessment. The woman was strangled to death after being repeatedly raped and her body dumped in a garbage can. The male was anally raped, shot, set afire, and his body dumped by railroad tracks. All suspects were black. Now, to do the kinds of things that were done to these people, in my real life experience, takes serious motivation. You dont bring yourself to strangle or set afire someone for whom you harbor a mild disdain, or even strong dislike. I wonder if a group of white people had done this to a black couple, if there would have been hate crime charges pressed. I would guess there would have been, and largely so because of the outcry that would come from black civic leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. With the roles reversed though, there were no such charges, and I suppose it’s best left to those dealing with the crime, but with all that said, I still can’t help but wonder why, and if racism, guilt or even self-loathing motivates things like this.
With that off my chest, I’ll start with your list.
1)The face of racism now is as likely to be black as white.
True. This is as much academic to me as it is practical. I’ve seen this happen on the street as recently as last week when a white police officer in my area was assaulted by a suspect, and taunted with racial slurs by black bystanders while trying to effect an arrest. White people do not have the market cornered on racism, to believe so is ignorant.
2)I would also put forward that a racist may not be practicing ‘malice of forethought’; (as was common historically) that a well intentioned, well meaning person (of any race) may, consciously or sub-consciously, practice racism.
True. If all you know of the person who cut you off in traffic, nearly causing a crash, was that he was black, your reaction could be intially negative against black people in general, but as you regain your reason, and can see the situation for what it is, you may no longer harbor the same negative feelings. In fact, if you continue to harbor those feelings, you are getting into the malice aforethought category
**True again. Both whites AND blacks profit from racism today, and guilt stemming from yesterdays’ racist culture **
** Despite what many experts may theorize, I think this is correct. No company with a single speck of integrity openly practices racism. I don’t think it’s in the prisons, I don’t think it’s in the colleges, I don’t think it’s in sports, and I don’t think it’s in the workplace as an accepted activity. I think that there are situations more likely to favor the white man over the black, but I also know that years of hand outs instead of hand-ups have created the culture of entitlement that has caused more harm than good. **
Miller’s right about the conflict between 4 and 5. If there’s not institutional racism, how can it exist in the media. I believe what you’re aiming for is white guilt and self-loathing for past wrongs.
It can be if you look hard enough. You can spin the idea of actions as racism anyway you choose, this does not make it so. Unfortunately, I believe the definitions are made by those in your example #3.
What’s your evidence that it was a hate crime? The fact that it was brutal, and the suspects were a different race from the victims? That’s not what a hate crime is supposed to mean.
Reactions to this crime were pretty interesting, however, as some white people I talk to online were absolutely incensed that this crime, which in no way affected their lives, was being “covered up.” I was sure, and still am, that they actually did feel black people generally hate them and wanted to know about the extent of the threat.
I agree with these responses.
This is thrown around a lot, but what evidence do we have that blacks are more likely to feel deserving of special treatment than other groups?
You simply miss the point. Racism has been defeated. If one wishes to assert whte on black racism, one must be prepared to provide winesses, statistical evidence, and, probably, a written confession. If one needs to assert intrinsic problems with the black community, the assertion is sufficient.
There is a legitimate area of discussion on these issues. Unfortunately, too many people who are eager to participate are more interested in proving that “their” side is the true victim rather than actually listening to the perspective of the “other” side. People who dismiss the claims of injury among poor whites are ignoring a very real aspect of our society. People who deny that some problems in the black community are self-inflicted are ignoring a real aspect of society. People who ignore signs of actual racism to claim that it has been “manufactured” by Jackson or Sharpton or “white guilt” are ignoring a very real aspect of society. People who claim that racism is not still a harmful factor in society are ignoring a real aspect of society. Most of these threads are painful, not for the efforts to come to an understanding of events, but because one set of frequent contributors are more interested in defending their claims of wounded dignity than in discovering how society (individually or collectively) might mitigate the problems.
That used to be me, based on something similar to the torn-off-arm example earlier. The problem with that analogy, IMO, is that it acts as though the wounded entity is a race, not an individual.
It’s not the case that doctors are deciding between treating a guy with a torn-off arm and a guy with a toothache. They’re deciding between groups, trying to figure out a good form of triage based on easily recognizeable characteristics (of which armlessness and toothachiness are not, for this example, included) that corresponds closely to real needs. Any such system will be imperfect, but it’s better than having no triage. At the same time, you ought not ignore the imperfections in the system.
Daniel
Is there a reason that you chose to not quote the rest of it?
CMC fnord!
Well that’s the thing isn’t it? Short of stating it during the act of the crime, or admitting to it after you’re caught there is no proof that it, or any other hate crime was or is a hate crime. Still, after 16 years both picking up after these type of messes and chasing bad guys (admittedly none as serious as this, thankfully) I have to posit that there was some hate involved here. If robbery was the motive, there would have been a less personal attack, knife, gun etc. and that’s it. If the couple say, stiffed the suspects on a drug deal, again, most likely the attacks would have been far less radical.
To do the things these people are accused of requires a hatred of SOMETHING to exist. These were VERY personal attacks, the rape of not just one but both victims is indicative of the accused lacking in power and/or control of nearly anything in their own life (lives), hating that loss of control, and subsequently blaming for that loss of control, the victim being a live metaphor for the percieved oppressor. The shooting is a more common, and more hands off way to kill though the strangling, again, you have to get close and personal with someone to make that a reality. It’s not something you can do from a distance. The mechanism of the actions the accused used to kill these two people seems to me to be the very definition of a hate crime. Granted, the requisite “legal” elements weren’t there,(i.e. they never admitted it, they weren’t avowed racists etc) and despite the fact that Tennessee has no hate-crime legislation on the books, but it seems to me directly that if you are to have hate crime legislation at all (which I don’t necessarily believe in per se) then should it not address cross-racial violence of this magnitude?
If a white man and a black man get in a fist fight because one pissed off the other, and one soundly beats the other’s ass that’s not a hate crime. If the white man hangs the black man from a tree after the fight, that’s a hate crime. If the black man sets the white man on fire, after the fight. THAT is a hate crime. Granted, one is more symbolic, but neither is less brutal than the other. Every personal crime involves SOME level of hate between perpetrator and victim, so I suppose the question must be, do we prosecute based on that feeling that motivates the attack, or do we punish the attack itself? It seems like punishment for the feeling won’t work, and that we should punish the attack based on the seriousness of the crime and apply more time to sentences, and follow the truth-in-sentencing ideals, rather than try and guess what motivates people.
Yes, because I linked the article.
The facts of the crime remain static. Because one or two of the perpetrators of the crime cavorted with and even dated white people does not remove a hate crime as a possiblity. In fact, that information can potentially increase the possibility that this was a hate crime. Knoxville is 79% white non-hispanic. 52% of the 16% of black residents live below the poverty line. The hatred of the haves vs. the have-nots is age-old. There exists a very real possiblity that the hatred the accused felt manifested itself BECAUSE of their interaction with white people.
It’s a psychological aspect of the crime that most laws cannot and do not consider, until it’s used as a defense.
From another aspect on the Police Chief’s take on motivation, a town that is 79% white, Southern, and most likely populated, even in small numbers, by very real, very violent dyed-in-the-wool, still-belong-to-the-KKK racists, would benefot from believing that this attack was not racially motivated, and by directing the spotlight away from that fact, very likely saved an innocent life.
How do you figure that?
Let’s assume racism is somehow measurable and every person has the capacity of generating 100 units of cross-racial racism. In a pool of 1000 white people and 100 black people (which is approximately the actual ratio of the American population) the white people will therefore generate a total of 100,000 units and the black people will generate a total of 10,000 units. Being as the racism is directed against the members of the opposite group (we’re ignoring Asians and Hispanics for the purpose of this experiment) then the 1000 whites receive 10,000 units (an average of 10 units each) and the 100 blacks receive 100,000 units (an average of 1000 units each). So the average black person receives 100 times as many racism units as the average white person.
But without evidence of such, you’re left with nothing but speculation and fantasy. What reason do you have for distrusting the cops’ conclusion in this case, anyway?
If the races in this crime were swapped, what would be your response to a black person yelling HATE CRIME!!! in the absence of facts that point in that direction? I have a strong hunch that you’d roll your eyes at them and come up with a list of reasons for why they are wrong and irrational.
Sorry. I was pulling out the actual percentage of African Americans in the US, which is somewhere around 12%.
You stated, bolding mine:
From wiki: Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia
White= 60.2%, Hispanic=14.5%, Black=12.1%, etc.
So whites outnumber blacks by 5 to 1, not 10 to 1. (I forgot to take into account that the other 78% of the population was not all white. :smack: Am I now a racist, or just a bonehead? 
)
Your model assumes that each person will have the same chance for exposure, which does not fit real life experience (which depends on a large number of variables).
*1)The face of racism now is as likely to be black as white. *
Eh, if you mean that any given individual you pull out of a crowd has the potential to be the face of racism (is there a poster campaign?), then okay. I believe that, given the numbers of people in the US, and the history of racism in this country, that the white population continues to have the greater statistical probability of racism (not sure what metrics you would use for that).
2)I would also put forward that a racist may not be practicing ‘malice of forethought’; (as was common historically) that a well intentioned, well meaning person (of any race) may, consciously or sub-consciously, practice racism.
Okay, I agree that well-intentioned people are not automatically exempt from racism.
3) That there are those who profit from racism, and have a vested interest in not only not seeing an ‘end’ to racism, (as a practical matter, as it is impossible to fully ‘end’ racism) but have in interest in promoting it.
I’d be interested to see what specific examples you would offer of this.
4) “Institutional racism” does not exist as a practical matter, and to the extent a it can be found (in rare, and subjective circumstances), those examples are used as examples to impute racism where it doesn’t exist, or can’t be known.
I’m not really sure I’m following this one, but I would agree that for all practical purposes, there isn’t a lot of racism in the written rules, policies, and regulations that make up institutional America. I think just about everyone is on the compliance bandwagon. However, I would expand “institutional racism” to include American institutions that due to their history, traditions, and perhaps overall inertia, continue to foster a culture of racism.
*
5) That the popular media is largely racist; that every time an African American behaves in an inherently racist manner, and the media gives a free pass, it is a form of racism. (and ironically, the closest form of “institional racism” we have)In effect, holding a race to a lower standard of behavior or performance, without a compelling reason to do so, is both paternalistic and racist. (and should be universally objectionable to people of every race)*
I would not at all describe the American popular media as giving a pass to African Americans behaving in a racist manner, in fact, I would assert that the opposite is true – the popular media is too quick to ascribe or imply racial motivations to African-Americans.
*
6) That those who seek to perpetuate the myth that racism, and racists, can be found in every nook and cranny of American society have been so effective that a whole generation of people—white and black—have been convinced that racism is a pervasive force in the work place, schools, popular culture, inter-racial relationships of every sort, the criminal justice system and more.*
Honest to God, I don’t know where I come down on this one. I do not think racism is everywhere, but I believe it is in plenty of places and I often feel ineffective in my personal efforts to convince others to at least look and consider. Man, I wish the efforts to encourage Americans to look more intently at race issues in society were as effective as you describe.
I was away from the internet so missed out on that other thread (I hate coming late to the page three party).
Well, yes, but hate crime laws only target hatred of specific classes. It doesn’t matter how hard these guys hated their victims, if they didn’t hate them because of their race or religion (or a few other factors, depending on the jurisdiction) then it’s not a hate crime.
Institutions are not racist. People are racist. To the extent that racism can be [rightfully] called “institutionalized” is to the extent that people conceive, articulate, and implement/execute racist polcies and/or practices.
In this society there are rogue (read:racist) HR directors, police officers, judges, managers, and others. If you think the war can’t be over until every single one of them is gone (by reasonable means), and every heart and soul is won over, I’d say you’re blissfully misguided. My analogy stands: Nazis are still with us, and in fact have seen some resurgence in some areas. This requires vigilance on the part of good people everywhere—voters, citizens, police officers, courts, prosecutors, parents, educators, activists and others.
But just like the Nazis, racists have been marginilzed in popular culture, in music and the arts, in law and in the legislator, in the courts, in the “hiring line”, in litigation, in the school cafeteria, in the workplace, in the universities, in police policies, at the ballot box, in sports, in business, in marriage and myriads of other ways.
Even if I accept on blind faith your 2 examples—“Driving While Black*”, and “whites being (unconsciously?) selected over blacks with the same or better credentials”, you make absolutely no compelling case for institutionalized racism. (more on this in another post)
If you say so. I suspect it makes you feel good to know you hold the [perceived] moral high ground. But you are not honoring the civil rights movement by perpetuating the AA as a perpetual victim, or the caucasion as a devil. It’s time to let go of the nonsense.
I know you too well to think you’re being disengenuous. But you can’t be serious.
Blackwell, was extremely well respected in the Ohio Republican party. He was a conservative darling, for Pete’s sake! Conservatives, and the Christian right were agog over him, and I know of several churches that were in full overdrive to elect the guy. He was previously elected to State wide office and was extremely well respected. Yet he ran as a conservative Republican with an incumbent Republican that was arguably the worst Governor in the United States. Voters in Ohio couldn’t tell who was held in greater derision, Bush or Taft.
Ohioans were/are absolutely fed up with Taft, his absolute incompetence and ethical lapses. **Ronald Reagan would have had a hard time following Taft into the Governor’s mansion. ** But Tom, you keep on believeing that Blackwell was done in by Republcans who would have preferred a left leaning Democrat over a black Republican.
(by CP): “When we can create a culture in which all peoples can come together and learn to ignore what population of peoples an individual has come from, we will create a non-racist society…
Every thread that furthers arguing about race and racism is divisive, except those which seek to promote the elimination of the concept in all but scientific and anthropologic curiosity.”
I am unclear as to why you make an inference that I suggested past and current wrongs would be righted simply because arguing about racism goes away. This would be like me suggesting that an amputee from an unjust war would get his leg back because we got rid of arguing about unjust wars, and I am not suggesting that.
I am suggesting that arguments about race and racism serve to perpetuate divisiveness. I am suggesting that many, if not most, “conversations” which have at their core the categorization of humans into “races” instead of conditions are counterproductive.
We cannot change the past. We will only get to a better future by getting past race and categories based on phenotype, and learning to judge individuals as individuals.