The Race Card and the Racist Card

Great Debates
1

About fifteen years ago, around the time of the OJ Simpson trial, the phrase “playing the race card” was introduced into public life. I’m sure everyone knows what it means, but for those unsure, it’s when someone decides to claim they’re a victim of racism to shut down criticism.

A modern day example would be David Patterson, the Governor of New York, attributing criticism of him to “racism”. Also, I think most people would agree that it’s fair to put in the same category claims of being other victims of bigotry, such as Michael Milken claiming he was a victim of anti-Semitism, or those who insist Sarah Palin is a victim of sexism even if “sexism” and “Anti-Semitism” are technically different than racism.

Lots of people have rightfully and righteously condemned this and say that doing so is grossly unfair. At this point, being accused of “playing the race card” is very clearly a bad thing.

However, one of the seemingly unfortunate side affects of this has been, what I’ll term “the playing of the racist card”.

At increasing amounts both in politics, IRL, and here on the interwebs, a lot of people increasing seem to try and blunt any, and sometimes all criticism of themselves by claiming they’re being accused of racism/sexism/anti-Semitism/insert other ism here even though they haven’t actually been accused of it.

For example, a few months ago, after Leon Wieseltier did a scathing critique of Andrew Sullivan, Sully threw a week-long shit fit and put up post after post on his blog squealing that he wasn’t an anti-Semite, that he didn’t have an anti-Semitic bone in his body and that accusing someone of anti-Semitism was disgusting. Numerous Jewish acqaintances of him came forward to insist they knew him and that he was no anti-Semite.

This was all well and good, but anybody who’d read Wieseltier’s actual article would have noticed he never actually calls Sully an anti-Semite, just calls him thoughtless, insensitive, and callow. While not terribly relevant to this discussion, I think everyone familiar with Sully would have to agree that such criticism is hardly completely unfair.

Similarly, recently Haley Barbour, the Governor of Mississippi, in one interview smugly claimed that when he was growing up “the Citizens’ Council” was great bulwark against the KKK and racism. This promptly drew an immense amount of criticism from people who pointed out the the Citizens’ Councils were actually firm proponents of white supremacy and segregation.

However, for several days, on all the cable networks people kept tripping over themselves to say that Haley Barbour wasn’t and racist and it was unfair to call him a racist even though nobody, or at least nobody important, had actually called him a racist.

And finally, here on the internet, I regularly here people claiming they’ve been called a racist/homophobe/anti-Semite/bigot when they’ve been called no such thing or claim that accusations of racism/bigotry/anti-Semitism have made discussions of Affirmative Action/immigration/the Middle East/Islam/Israel impossible.

I would humbly suggest that just as we now are not hesitant to criticize those who “play the race card” we also come down on those who “play the racist card” because IMHO they’re both equally annoying.

Anyway, I’m interested to hear what others think of this.

2

So, the debate is people shouldn’t play the race card unless they are actual victims of racism, and people shouldn’t play the racist card unless they are actually accused of being racists? I don’t think anyone is going to disagree.

Having said that, perhaps it would be more useful to debate specific examples, like Barbour. In that case, could you provide some quotes from what was actually said so we don’t have to rely on your summation of events?

3

Any such “card” is bad inasmuch as it’s effective in tarnishing someone’s reputation regardless of what the truth is - kind of like calling someone a child molester. We want to discredit actual racists and race-baiters, but we don’t want to give any old fool the ability to destroy reputations just by saying some content-free words.

4

If I may presume to summarize the OP:
Ad hominem is bad, but it works, which is annoying.

5

Although I don’t think the Simpson trial was really the start of the term “playing the race card,” it’s interesting that people look to it as an example.

The thing is, Furman’s views on race were absolutely relevant to the trial. That he was a vicious racist, and lied about being such, has a genuine impact on whether his testimony, and his role in the investigation were credible.

It seems there is a definite counter to playing the race card, and it isn’t necessarily playing the racist card - its an accusation that any discussion of race is automatically playing the race card.

6

One gives power to unfounded accusations of being a “racist” by reacting to them.

If the accusation is justified, one apologizes and changes one’s thinking. If it is not, you shrug and move on. No one who is trying to win an argument by this kind of thing is going to allow himself to be talked out of it.

It is unfortunately not rare that “racist” means “someone who is winning an argument with a liberal”. Not always, but you can spot it pretty easily. They are trying to change the subject under discussion away from your position, putting you on the defensive, and getting you to prove a negative (and usually ignoring whatever you say to prove you are not a racist).

Meh. It is just background noise from people with nothing better to say.

Regards,
Shodan

7

In online arguments, sure. In anything impacting the litigious real world, unfortunately, the race card works.

8

I’ve said this elsewhere - few who hold what I would consider to be obviously racist and/or anti-Semitic beliefs believe they are racist and/or anti-Semitic. (It is not racism or anti-Semitism to someone who thinks it is truth.) Calling them such usually accomplishes very little.

Is the poster here who has argued that Blacks are, as a group, not as smart as Whites, racist? He would argue strongly that he is not, it is just hypersensitivity and political correctness, he believes, that keeps us from honestly investigating the question.

Are those here who believe that Jews who are involved in foreign policy are of possible questionable loyalty, and may be influencing America to do things against American interests but in “Jewish” ones, anti-Semites? They certainly do not think so. Nor do those who “just ask” if Jews being over-represented in media companies as writers, directors, and producers, isn’t proof of a Jewish “good old boy” network there that discriminates against non-Jews.

If one believes it is true then one does not see oneself as a hater.

The person who calls out what seems to them to be clear racist and/or anti-Semitic beliefs is not playing a race or Jew card in their minds, even if few who are not of that group (and maybe even some who are) do not see the event as racist or anti-Semitic.

Bringing up individual events will provide no clarity. It will only invite each of us “sharing” if each one crossed our personal subjective view of what objective reality is.

Which is not to say that there are not haters and not those who are all too eager to perceive offense based on group membership when none was intended. But handling the subject like there is an objective truth is a mistake.

9

If that’s antisemitism to you, you’ve just emptied the word of its meaning. Admittedly it’s a good example of playing the race card.

Remember though, the Race Card can only be played as an Interrupt, and you have to tap two terrains.

10

Illustrating my point that one person’s canard is another’s reasonable thought to which any objection is playing a race card - and why I do not generally accuse those who express such beliefs to be “anti-Semites.” What they are or are not will either be made obvious to others by their statements and actions or not.

Jews are disloyal citizens? Calling that belief anti-Semitic is playing the card. Jews are clannish and their success outside that expected for their numbers is due to that? Labeling that belief anti-Semitic is also playing the card. Heck even stating that such might be perceived as anti-Semitic, even asking if it is, is playing the card.

Substitute in beliefs about any other minority. Classic stereotypic refrains used by the haters for, well ever, are not anti anything to those who hold them, and they are shocked that anyone might consider that they would be, and if they hit the classic notes to those of the target group, they are hateful to them. Conversation about it is pretty unproductive and better just ignored.

11

I agree with all of that, and add another point: that pretty well everyone to a certain extent believes in some sorts of ethnic stereotypes, and indulges in some sort of ethno-tribalism. The problem of bigotry is really a matter of degree, and one of how much a person truly allows themselves to be influenced by it in individual cases.

12

Funny how that works, using someone’s race as a slur to suggest that they’re a bad/untrustworthy person, based on on their race, that’s part of what folks like to call “racism”.
Yah, pretty sure that being racist against Jews doesn’t empty “anti-Semitism” of its meaning. That is pretty much the meaning.

Of course, as it’s en vogue (in certain dark corners) to bandy about such racism, to its proponents it becomes Good Solid Thinking. Just like people who, instead of watching all Jews in politics for potential Jewish Treachery look at all blacks around white women as potential rapists, it’s just Good Solid Thinking.

We’ve had this discussion before, but I honestly do believe that letting racism go unchallenged is much more dangerous than calling it out. Of course virtually every racist on the planet claims that they’re totally justified. As I’m fond of pointing out, David Duke himself argues quite strenuously that he’s not an anti-Semite at all, he’s just warning the world about the dangers that Jews hold and their evil, clannish nature.
The problem with not calling racism out is that it becomes the standard language of discourse. Obviously the point of Zombie’s objection is that people should be free to allege that Jews, based only on their ethnicity and nothing else, are potential traitors. Accusations such as that are blatantly racist “You are a member of [racial group A] therefore you are to be suspected of [stereotypical bad behavior B].”

The real risk is that anti-Semitism like that becomes casual and accepted. What, do you think, the country will be like for the next generation (or the one after that) if that sort of racism is part and parcel of the political discourse? Special loyalty probes for anybody who’s Jewish, the concept that any Jew can’t necessarily be trusted in politics due to their clannish allegiance to Global Jewry. And how short a series of steps is it from that from normal, to seeing Americans who happen to be Jewish as an inherently foreign, potentially hostile Other, to something really nasty?

If today it’s kinda okay to say that simply being Jewish is cause for concern in a politician, and tomorrow it’s considered just sound policy to probe any Jews for potential treachery, what does the future hold?

Of course racists will deny they’re racists. Of course people who see Jewish Cabals and Dual Loyalty behind every corner will say that they’re just being rational, some of their best friends are Jewish and besides there are Good Jews (who have the correct politics, or who aren’t too successful, or…). But by letting racism inform the way that Americans lead their lives and look at Jews, all we’re doing is politely offering to ready the noose ourselves.
We wouldn’t want to cause a fuss, after all.

13

I would have thought accusing Jews of questionable loyalty a pretty fair example of bigotry. I certainly think it is when it is directed, as it more commonly is, against Muslims.

14

OJ. He’s got 99 problems.

15

That’s the point I’m getting at though.

For some groups, you risk outright and virulent social condemnation for acts of racism. Hell, people have gotten in serious shit for using the word “niggardly”, simply because it reminds people of “nigger”. And there is a real, and absolutely justified movement to point out Islamaphobia in people who assume that Muslims are all potential terrorists. Hell, we’re thankfully at the point where our more progressive citizens are realizing that denying gays the right to marry and adopt children is a civil rights violation.

But the idea that Jews have questionable loyalty, because they are Jews, is a ‘serious’ political topic. And, in large part, many Jews are afraid to make a scene about it. If we ignore it it will not go away. But the degree to which we, as a society, begin to feel comfortable instituting loyalty probes on the basis of Jewishness shows how bad things can get, quickly.

16

QFT

“I’m not saying <insert racist/bigoted/homophobic slur/stereotype>; I’m just saying we must accept <insert racist/bigoted/homophobic slur/stereotype> as possible.”

“BTW… <insert racist/bigoted/homophobic slur/stereotype>, <insert racist/bigoted/homophobic slur/stereotype> …and… <insert racist/bigoted/homophobic slur/stereotype>, <insert racist/bigoted/homophobic slur/stereotype> …time… <insert racist/bigoted/homophobic slur/stereotype>, <insert racist/bigoted/homophobic slur/stereotype>.”

“How dare you call my views bigoted! Quit persecuting me; PC thought police always persecute me. These questions must be answered! My wackjob opinions must be dignified by your acknowledgment and consideration!”

17

Oh, and I gotta link to the race genie.

18

It was nice to hear the word teabagging with its old meaning again.[/off topic]

19

That’s quite disingenuous, but hey, what a great way of showing how the race card is usually played.

DarkSeid said:

A handful of posts later, it turns in

That’s classicaly how it’s played out. You can change the nationality/ethnicity/religion. As long as you’ve got self entitled self appointed comissars, it will go on and on.

20

Actually, you’re showing how people try to defend racist statements by claiming that the ‘race card’ is being used.
The disingenuous is in your argument, not Malthus’.

DarkSeid was talking about people accusing Jews, simply because they are Jews, of potential treachery for the Jewish Agenda (or what have you). That is, indeed, saying that Jews are inherently disloyal and have to be watched for treachery due to the fact that their Jewishness makes them potential traitors in political matters.

And yes, you can change the ethnicity/race/whatever and it’d be just as racist.

“Blacks who are involved in local government are of possible questionable loyalty, and may be influencing their home community to do things against that community’s interests but for “black” interests”
“Muslims who are involved in foreign policy are of possible questionable loyalty, and may be influencing America to do things against American interests but in “Muslim” ones”
“People of European heritage who are involved in foreign policy are of possible questionable loyalty, and may be influencing America to do things against American interests but in “European” ones”

That’s all pretty clear, your claims of persecution by “commissars” notwithstanding.