Multiple times I’ve distinguished “jerk with Obama monkey doll” from the person who harbors the low-grade racist bigotry that marks the baseline of most Americans. I don’t know how many other times I can say it so it’s clear. I mean, if I was talking about mere bigots, I would have included examples of such in the OP.
I don’t think there’s anything natural about a guy holding up an Obama monkey doll, even if I think there’s truth to the statement “everyone’s a little racist”. But the conservatives and the cheery-cheeked optimistics would have us believe that the Obama monkey guy no longer exists or that people like him represent such a miniscule segment of the population that it’s foolish to think about them. All I’m asking is if we have evidence that this is the case.
Frankly, I don’t care if you’re not sympathetic. If you can’t understand how racist this country has been not only in the olden times but in modern times, within the lifetime of people who are still living and breathing, then you’re the one who needs pity, not me. To put things in perspective for you, my parents were the ones who were chased up and down the streets with hoses. They were the ones who had their churches burned and worried about the KKK catching them after sunset. They were the ones who were afraid to vote or urinate in the “wrong” bathroom. Yes, I’m very very fortunate that I didn’t have to live through this, but my parents did. Am I supposed to forget that legacy just because I got into college through Affirmative Action and we might have the first black president? Is that what conservativism is about? Selective amnesia?
You know what’s wrong? Telling me to look at another country’s problems to understand what happened to my parents, their parents, and all the generations before them. Telling me that I shouldn’t be saddened by an Obama noose joke (yes, they exist) because in Rwanda, racism caused one ethnic group to chase another with machetes. I love living in the great ole USA. I went to the Obama rally last week and waved my American flag just as vigorously as anyone else in that coliseum. But I’m not going to assume America is the standard for race relations just because it makes for a nice happy ending. Not when my parents, who were born second class citizens and still carry the scars, are still alive and well. As are the people who said we’re going to kill you, nigger! right to their faces.
If every single black customer that enters the store shop-lifts, then perhaps it’s not wrong to equate blackness with thievery.
But if black customers come into the store all the time and don’t shop-lift but you still view them suspiciously, then you’re guilty of racial prejudice.
There is, however, an old aphorism running around the mental health community and its critics that notes, first, that everyone is neurotic, and second, that if everyone is neurotic, the word no longer has meaning, because it means that neurosis is simply a human condition.
At that point, it becomes difficult to understand why we should care whether the number of racists is large or small, because “everyone” is racist and what we are really concerned about is some level of belief or action that goes beyond simply being “racist.”
And if they all are, what does that tell us beyond that they are human with the typical human penchant for xenophobia and clannishness shaped, to a certain extent, by their life experiences?
= = =
I would think that it would be more important to work to eliminate racist actions than to strive to change human perception and trying to determine where on some wide spectrum we should drop the flag that says “this is really bad racism while that is unfortunate, but non-impairing racism.”
I can see the point to try to stamp out racist practices in hiring and housing.
I can see the point in trying to eliminate the institutional racism that appears in this sort of situation and this sort of situation.
I’m not sure that there will be any effective remedy for the bias resulting from name recognition until we have all intermarried and there are dozens of CEOs named ShaNelle and rappers named Cody and I am not sure where a debate leads that tries to find some break point.
If a poster wanders by and tries to pretend that racism no longer plays a significant role in society (or that the “worst” racism is anti-white), I can see being concerned to the point of correcting that poster’s error. I’m not sure that trying to discover whether we need to describe racsim as really prevalent or very rare, (particularly without an agreement on what prevalent or rare mean), gets us anywhere.
Way I see it, everyone harbours the tendancy towards some form of bigotry or another - may be racism, may be sexism, may simply be clannishness, may be classism, or whatever. It isn’t, I think, a big deal - that is just inherent in the human condition: people respond better to those “like them”, but define what being “like them” is differently (for myself, a Black fellow in my line of work - I’m a lawyer - is definitely more “like me” than a White fellow who does manual labour - which just proves I’m more class-ist than racist).
The distinction isn’t between those who have tendencies towards bigotry on the one hand, and those who don’t on the other; it is between those who, by their acts, demonstrate that they cannot use their brains to overcome those tendencies, and those who can.
I created the OP out of frustration. It frustrates me to hear about the things mentioned in the OP and then have someone tell me, in all genuine sincerity, that I have nothing to fear from racists since they’re isolated to the backwoods somewhere, collecting welfare and having sex with their sisters.
I’m not trying to drum up fear or redefine racism so that it includes everyone and everything (my definition of racism is the same as 99% of the posters here…so I’m kind of sick of this line of discussion. but whatever). I’m just trying to find out why we are so quick to put racists in the same box as dinosaurs and the Leakey’s Lucy. We don’t have any evidence of this. If everyone seems to have an anecdotes about racial encounters, not mere prejudice but actual racism, doesn’t it make more sense to believe racists are still out there, potentionally screwing things up? According to posters like Chief Pendant and DSeid I’m “ranting and riled up” over nothing. Like I’m the one who’s being irrational. Hence my continuing frustration.
As far as “getting us” somewhere, I don’t think it hurts for us to shrug off the naivety that often comes with optimism. I can be optimistic about society and acknowledge that we’ve made progress, but still be pretty concerned about the racism that might affect me and any potential children I have. And also be concerned about the bad thinking I may pass along. I’m not quite ready to accept that “everyone is a little racist” means I can’t wish for a day when Obama bucks aren’t in circulation.
Do those who can’t use their brains to overcome racist tendencies constitute just a tiny, insignficant minority that is not worth worrying about?
Well, to believe that means first believing that most people are introspective and honest enough to admit that they are capable of acting in a racist way based on their natural inclinations. But without that kind of self-awareness, your brain won’t know what to override. Are most of us that self-aware? I doubt it.
And secondly, we should wonder if most people care all that much if their actions lead to discrimination. I think people as a group are more worried about being labeled racist than they are about treating other people fairly and equally. If you were to poll Americans and ask them if they are racist, very few would probably say yes. But if you modified the question by asking them whether they’d rather hire a white person than a black one, I’m confident that more people would indicate a willingness to discriminate.
I don’t think people really care that strongly about actually giving people a fair shake. They do care about being thought of in that way, which is why many still trot out the “I’m not a racist, but…” disclaimer prior to making a racist statement.
I think anyone who makes such a claim can be pretty easily contradicted by the clear examples of actual racism hurting real people mentioned in the links that you and I have both provided in this thread.
Race, like religion, economics, etc, is a complex galaxy of issues. It’s not just a question of, “Is America racist, yes or no?”
Some of the aspects of the issue that need to be untangled are:
[ul]
[li]The actual percentage Americans who could be reasonably be considered racists.[/li][li]The distinction between ordinary working-class people and media figures, policians, business owners, educators, etc, plus their written policies.[/li][li]How an individual can have a racist view on one narrow issue like in the OP, but can still be non-racist in other ways like supporting of the civil rights movement, being nice to black people, etc.[/li][li]How many things that are arguably racist do not indicate a continuation of Jim Crow-era attitudes but are the product of an individual’s own questionable logic. [/li][li]How many things that are considered racist are reactions to statistical likelihoods, rather than an attitude toward a given individual. [/li][li]How minorities often do not consider intent and instead react to an incident according to how they associate it with a set of historical archetypes of racism, and to how it conforms to what they’ve been brought up to expect. [/li][li]The degree to which the barrage of false accusations of racism is creating a backlash that feeds into the animosity that is persisting.[/li][li]The degree to which a minority “community” does speak with a unified voice and thus justifying on some level the making of generalizations about it.[/li][li]The degree to which mass-media reporting of racist incidents feeds the perception that racism is commonplace.[/li][/ul]
If you believe that’s what I’ve said then I suggest you reread my post. Ranting, yes. Over nothing no. Engaging in a constructive discussion or debate, no.
you perhaps I am not so pessimistic as you that they all cannot be reached. But how to address each of them may (or may not) be different.
To the credit of Team Obama I think that he has reached many of them. Many are racist in this country to various degrees and in various ways and yet many of those people are voting for Obama. That didn’t just happen. He focused on issues that mattered to them, he showed them what they have in common, gave them something other than skin color to identify with, he sold the contradictory messages of change and I’m not all that different at the same time with success.
Racists can be reached … enough of the time to make a difference. But not if they are all reduced to a stereotyped racist.
I’m still unclear on your use of the term “racist,” though. I do understand that you consider some racists more malignant than others. My anxiety then, is your expansion of the term to include a much broader group than the monkey ilk. Such an expansion dilutes the term to the point where it no longer connotes much of anything negative.
“Sinner,” for example, might apply to those who commit an Unpardonable Sin or simply indulge in a peccadillo. So a preacher trying to rail against sin doesn’t gain much by simply expanding the definition so broadly that the child rapist is thrown in with the speeder. His purpose might be to bring all under a common conviction of their shortcomings; by being too inclusive in his use of the term, no one even takes umbrage at being called a sinner (much less falls under conviction) because the real sinners are not singled out.
Your posts subsequent to the OP have gradually extended the definition of “racist” to include even yourself. I am simply suggesting that such a broad inclusion subverts any effort at preaching against it.
I don’t understand why you have so a low regard of me and my postings to this thread. So, for the sake of my good mood, I’m not going to be addressing you in any more in this thread.
I presented an OP with pretty blatant examples racism, from people shouting “GO BACK TO KENYA!” to emailing each other Obama bucks to dressing up monkeys like Obama. I called these people “racist” and asked if these people are a tiny insignificant minority.
brazil comes in and asked what I consider “racist”. I didn’t want to be sidetracked into a discussion on semantics, because I know this is a common tactic of people who don’t really talk about the topic. But I gave a definition, one that I feel is sufficiently narrow so as not to include everyone but not too restrictive. And it turns out that a definition wasn’t really needed for most posters, who were able to figure out from the OP who I was talking about.
But because I ended up talking about my own experiences with racism, in an unnecessary attempt to “define my terms”, you’re confused about the intent of my OP? I think you’ve made yourself confused. Either that or you don’t really talk about racism, you just want to play “gotcha”.
I don’t know how much more I can clarify myself before I start feeling you’re yanking my chain.
Wouldn’t it be kinda self-righteous of me to judge the woman in the OP without confessing to know where she’s coming from, as a fellow American and human being? Isn’t self-confession a compassionate way to handle a touchy subject? Is it better for me to pretend that I don’t understand the racist process, even when I most certainly do? How does lying and pretending make for a frank and productive conversation?
If I’m going to judge the person who discriminates against Keishas and Lashawns in a stack of resumes, then shouldn’t I check myself when I’m tempted to discriminate against Jennifers and Edwards?
Or is it even wrong for me to consider these acts of racism, since there’s no blood involved and no hatred.
After going back and forth with you over what is and isn’t racism, I still don’t know what your answer is to this basic question.
Ha! Keisha and Lashawn are my absolute favorite black generic names. For white names, I am partial to Becky and Billy.
Listen. I don’t care how much anyone furrows their brow and looks around confusedly; nostrils flared in baffled indignation, they know good and well what you mean by ‘racism’. It is alive and well and rampant in this nation. Accept it.
I remember a teacher I had. She was my GED teacher, and she spent her entire time teaching us, peppering her lessons with astonishment that we could learn so well. She was a really nice lady. She was a good teacher. She was very liberal, and helpful and all that good stuff. But she was actually astonished that blacks could do so well with math and writing and science. “Wow!!! Great job! I am so proud of you! I am thrilled you were able to complete that project so well!” We all rolled our eyes as we noticed she never gave these little speeches to the white kids in the class.
She was racist. Not the same kind of racist as the folks referred to in the OP. As a matter of fact, I don’t know why I bring her up now. I guess just to remind myself that even the white folks that are voting for Obama may be racistly thinking to themselves, “I am thrilled you are able to accomplish being so well prepared for the office of president! Good for you”
If I misunderstand your meaning I am sorry, but if you agree that they can be reached then my point to you is that the how to reach them may vary depending on the different types of beliefs that they have. And even how aware they are of having them.
monstro I am really not meaning to insult you nor do I hold you in low regard. If the op is a question of how much blatant overt hateful racism there is in this country, well I do not doubt that there is still quite a bit, but I think that they are a decreasing minority view, held most by those with decreasing influence, and even those who hold them in the abstract are decreasingly likely to behave in ways based on it. I do not know any of my peer group with those overt beliefs (although I recognize that many of my peer group have sometimes behaved in ways that may nevertheless be influenced by racial biases and/or have unintended racist effects … and I think that such less overt biases are more endemic and in the long term more harmful … but you’ve made it clear that is not your op’s interest ) but my peer group is not necessarily representative of the population at large. If you are merely posting out of frustration then fine, you deserve your outrage, and I apologize for trying to discuss the broader subject. Nothing wrong with ranting against persistent injustices and not my job to redirect to a forum designed for those rants. Identifying it as such was not intended as an insult nor meant to dismiss the injustice as “nothing.”
It’s your op. I am sorry that my attempt to contribute has marred your good mood. Seriously. Take care.
I know exactly the type of person you’re talking about. When I was in graduate school, I shared a benchtop with an older woman (in her late-50s) who volunteered in the lab. She would always talk about how articulate I am, how good my vocabulary is, how my parents much be very educated and cultured, etc… She never did this with the other graduate students. At first I found it all very flattering, especially given her age and experience. But after a while, I started to realize what was happening and it irritated me.
The thing is, even though the shoe fits, I wouldn’t feel comfortable calling her a racist. I don’t know what I would call her except well-intentioned but socially tone-deaf.
But I never said anything about whether everyone can be reached or not, so I’m still not understanding where assumptions about my pessimism are coming from. I was responding to your claim that there’s a fundamental difference between the voter who won’t vote for Obama because of irrational fears and the voter who is motivated by irrational hate. Yes, they are two different motivations, but since the end result is the same (i.e. discrimination), I disagree that it’s wrong to put both types of voters in the racist column.
I can get along famously with these kinds of people. I watch them with a sharper eye than I watch a blatant racist, but I can work with them, laugh with them; whatever. I can get along with them.
But what can we call them, if not racist? They think that blacks are inferior, intellectually. They believe that a ‘smart’ black is extraordinary. That is racist.
I agree, Nzinga. But I am having other thoughts as I read this thread:
That all the waffling re racism applies to sexism, too. No, I don’t want to divert the thread, it’s just an observation. People make me tired sometimes–hell, I make me tired often.
My view is ok, so racism exists–what to do about it? Some folks you can’t change–my own grandpa called AAs either coloreds or n*ggers. We kids were appalled, but raised to be courteous around Grandpa (whom we didn’t see often. We lived in Chicago and he lived in FL). So, that generation and its kids have to die off (seriously–the generation that remembers separate drinking fountains etc–they need to go and they are. Not that there aren’t plenty of people in that generation who were against segregation etc, but you get my point). That leaves us with post-Civil Rights era folk. (we’re not here yet. But in another 10 years or so, we will be, no?)
So, what then? Hopefully, HOPEFULLY, with a black President and some changes in our social programs and national priorities, we may see some movement. I think we will see a lessening of more rabid racism as the black middle class increases and by just living next door and sharing the community concerns, more leery whites will be convinced that their world is not threatened, but enriched and broadened. I hope so.
But what to do with the entrenched culture of failure that predominates in some areas? I have no answers. I wish I did. What to do with the diehard morons? I don’t know. But, IMO, the more racism and racists are marginalized, the better. If we look back, I don’t know anyone who will admit that we need to go back to pre-Civil Rights era society, to re-segregate, that is. At least, I hope I don’t know anyone like that (my MIL comes to mind…).