Ajai, thanks for the Dowd opinions. I think Brooks sums it up well when he says, "Well, I don’t have a machine for peering into the souls of Obama’s critics, so I can’t measure how much racism is in there. But my impression is that race is largely beside the point. There are other, equally important strains in American history that are far more germane to the current conflicts."
If race were the most important motivator of the group he witnessed in DC, then why were the teabaggers hanging with the African American group?
In Joe Wilson's case, yes, it looks like the guy is motivated by race, if not in whole that at least in part. But, Clinton was called all kind of names, communist, etc. and people protested their policies as well. You can't claim that that was motivated by race.
Why were they hanging out? I don't know, maybe they hid the signs with Obama dressed like a witch doctor, or the directives telling him to go back to Kenya. Who knows?
Racism has little to do with hanging out, or 'liking' the other. It has more to do with the complicit acceoptance of an insitutionally racist status quo. It has more to do with advancing a climate where they president doesn't get the respect of being looked in the eye, or the normal respectful customs usually associated with a president.
Of course not ALL criticism of Obama is racially motivated, nobody ever said it was. It's not an all or nothing proposition. It would be wrong to say it was all racist, and it is equally wrong to just assume it is not a factor. That would be denial, when the racist messages are pretty obvious.
Not all of his opponents are racist, but a good many are not afraid to use racism to oppose him.
This is the best line in the whole of that opinion:
"And the best way to foster that self-reflection is through telling the truth in a way that doesn't make people defensive or point fingers--except at those who wear their prejudice proudly and deserve our scorn."
"Racism has little to do with hanging out, or 'liking' the other. It has more to do with the complicit acceoptance of an insitutionally racist status quo. It has more to do with advancing a climate where they president doesn't get the respect of being looked in the eye, or the normal respectful customs usually associated with a president."
I agree that this is ONE definition of racist. There are many definitions, degrees, etc. My point, and David Brooks's, is that people disagree with Obama on POLICY. Can you admit that? You cannot say that the protests are about race and be accurate. That is what I am saying. Or we would need to come up with some prejudice against Bush for why he is so hated. Maybe because he's a Texan?
"...demographers now place it around 2040--when whites are in the minority in the U.S."
I have a problem with this wording and the thinking behind it. It only perpetuates the white/non-white dichotomy. Are Latinos, African-Americans, and Asian-Americans all the same ethnicity? Unless the speaker/writer means that there will be fewer caucasians than ANY of these other groups, then this argument is BS.
The US has a history of white supremacy, but they will soon be in the minority. This is true. Whites are the ones who are hung up on racial purity, and I know from experience that they will get defensive no matter what. The denial of their history is so great.
I have no idea what the protests are about, all I see is a bunch of racist anger, at least that is all that is being articulated. Racism and fear.
I hated Bush because I understood his policy. The same cannot be said for Obama bashers. We've only had one African-American president, and they call him a Nazi. If that's not racist, then I'm not sure what is.
"Whites are the ones who are hung up on racial purity, and I know from experience that they will get defensive no matter what."
I hope that you mean SOME whites are hung up on racial purity. I don't know anyone who is a neo-Nazi or a White Supremist. That would be a joke since I don't think I know anyone who's racially pure...most of us are mutts. Me, I'm Irish, German and Scottish. No, that's not half-black, half-white, but I certainly don't call it racially pure.
By the way, many Native Americans reject names that group them all together and they go by their tribe name. Racial purists?
"Whites are the ones who are hung up on racial purity, and I know from experience that they will get defensive no matter what. The denial of their history is so great."
Wow, there's that tolerance that I've come to expect... I am not an Obama guy so I must be racist right? Or is it just that I am paranoid? How about any other mental disorders? Or is it just because I am white?
Denial of "their" history? I fully admit that white people have oppressed poeple of color. I have to ask though, do you have information on my history? Or my families history? Do you place me into a catagory simply because I am white?
Just to be clear I have never owned a slave, nor has any of my releatives going back to my quaker family history. Not sure if they had racsit history back in Holland during the 17th century. I've never worn a white sheet as a mask,(except one halloween when I was about four) and I don't have anything against people of color. I judge people by who they are not their skin color...
In fact I like to think of myself as a somewhat cultured person. I have traveled in South America, and all over the U.S. including the south.
If you disagree with me then fine, but please don't call me, or imply that I am a racist simply because of it!
Not sure whether or not Hitler would have killed me. He was apparently more tolerant of those who spoke germanic languages, but the fact that I have brown hair would have definitely made me impure! He probably would have just killed any American and considered them impure...too much risk of 'mixing'.
"Whites are the ones who are hung up on racial purity"
This is not true. There are many ethnicities, even in the US, that do not accept inter-racial marriages. Being of Indian decent, do you not know people like this? There are racial purists in every ethnicity.
A lot of white people voted for Obama. Here's an article on how votes are split by ethnicity. Of course, you can't always uncouple race and political party, but these are important numbers:
I think this statistic shows how far we have come as a nation on race issues:
"A stunning 54 percent of young white voters supported Obama, compared with 44 percent who went for McCain, the senator from Arizona. In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young whites."
Being that racial purity is at best unrealistic, race must be a social construct.
I do not doubt that all races have people that oppose miscegenation or attempt to commit genocide.
However, in much of western cultural there is an ideal for the normative person, and this is set by the majority. As racial lines continue to blur the system of power will shift demographically, but now the norm is White.
I am part White myself, though less than our President, but I am not classified as White. It only takes a small component of anything else, to the degree for which a person may pass for White.
However, it does not work the other way. A non-White person is not outclassed by the introduction of White blood. That strain does not change there racial classification, to the degree by which a person may pass as non-White.
Remember, race is a social construct, and systems of oppression are set by the impressions of the dominant class. Therefore, even the perception of race can be used against a person.
While not all opposition to Obama is racist, perceptions based in racism can be manipulated.
I am particularly bothered by the claims that he is not a U.S citizen. It is something that I can identify with.
It's good to be at my computer again, rather than trying to blog by iphone.
Interesting piece...I do question this statement: "More than half of Republicans aren’t convinced Obama’s a citizen? Huh?" I'd like to know where that info was obtained.
I do wonder how the middle, lower-middle, and poor classes support the likes of Beck, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh when they are getting rich off their schtick and haven't done squat to help their followers. I can only sumise that they aren't so bright.
As for the skinhead with the swashtika in the photo, I don't know that I've ever seen one in real-life myself. And I've been to some pretty white bread places, including Idaho, skin-head central. My cousin who lived there for ten years ran into a small group of them once...oh, and she said there was a parade once. I still have to think they are the fringe, which is not to say that even a small number is good at all.
Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, there is a group called SHARP, skinheads against racial prejudice. Apparently skinheads didn't start out as a white supremist group, even though now they are associated that way.
They started out being anti-being laid off, which led to xenophobic tendencies. I remember SHARPS I knew in high school, and have always considerd them good allies.
"The 1920s were a time of heightened racial tension throughout the United States, and Oregon was no exception. The Klu Klux Klan organized in Oregon in 1921 and began terrorizing blacks and other minorities throughout the state, including Salem. Charles Maxwell, the owner of a shoeshine shop in Salem, received a threatening letter which read “We have stood you as long as we intend to stand you, and you must unload, if you don’t we will come to see you.” It was signed KKK over a skull and crossbones. Maxwell refused to be bullied; he remained in Salem and in 1928 opened the Fat Boy Barbecue restaurant in the Hollywood section. The business was successful until a bank foreclosure during the Depression. Maxwell’s daughter Maxine was also the victim of racism; in 1929 she was denied a room in the women’s dormitory at Oregon State University because she was black. In the 1930s, the Maxwell family moved to California, as did many blacks from Oregon."
The Roots column articulately identifies the connection between financial anxieties and racial tensions, and how this is manipulated. If only more would see the common goals in helping this nation persevere.
Not to nit-pick, but it's the Ku Klux Klan, no l in the first word.
The 20s and 30s are ancient history. Not that we should forget that history, as the saying goes. I'm not denying that there is too much racism in this country, but I like to focus on what progress has been made as well. Both are an important part of the solution.
Well, sorry to be so late to the discussion, but I'd like to add my two cents. My apologies if this has already been stated and I missed it, but...
David Brooks? Really? We are interested in David Brooks analysis of racism in America? Sorry, but I've never found him to be all that enlightened and he seems to restate what those who deny the vast racism in this country want people to believe.
I saw white people talking to black people, so racism is not at the core of the tea party, parties. No, I don't think that logic follows.
What many of us "white" folks tend to think is that, since things are so much better now than they were in the 50's, then the "small" amount of racism that we "see" from time to time is hardly worth complaining about. But, the problem is in their inability to identify inherent racism.
Why do you suppose that Joe Wilson felt comfortable enough to shout out during a presidential speech? Here's my take...lack of respect. And, I believe this lack of respect is not just lack of respect for this particular president, but lack of respect for those with black skin. Lots of Republicans HATED Clinton. Nobody yelled at him when he addressed Congress.
Racism is no longer an "overt" issue, it is a highly covert issue. And, many of us don't even recognize when we are exhibiting covert racism.
It can be anything from being disrespectful to our current President during a speech to Congress or just being a bit "worried" when a black guy crosses the street toward you.
As a woman, you should be concerned when any man crosses the street toward you, but are you able to recognize that you are more concerned that he is black....or hispanic?
Tim Wise wrote a book called White Like Me. I'd encourage everyone to read it. He does an outstanding job identifying covert racism. As an example of this, he points out a study that was done where various people applied for jobs throughout the country. They all had the exact same credentials, but their names were different. There were Joe's and Stans and Jim's and Sue's and Alice's. And, there were Jemmont's, and Shanice's and Jada's and Jamal's (these weren't the exact names, but you get the picture). At a very high rate, the "white" names got calls for interviews and the "black" names didn't.
This is an example of racism that is hard to see and it happens all the time. I would not easily dismiss the motives of those at those tea bag parties. I have no doubt that many are, at their core, racists. Maybe not, let's hang 'em in a tree racists, but more, I'm not hiring anyone named Jamal, racists.
I stand by my opinion that people oppose Obama on policy. Again, I am not denying that there is a race issue regarding Obama as well, but I think if the president were white and were putting into place the policies that Obama is, there would be tea baggers protesting the 'socialist' movement.
For the record, Harry Reid called Bush a loser and a liar. No race issue there:
And, again, I do think Joe Wilson is racist, but that doesn't make everyone who opposes Obama's policies racist. With all due repsect, I think it is pointless to bring up the fact that everyone is racist to a degree. Obviously a majority of young whites voted for Obama, so what happened to their inherent racism? If you say that they overcame it, well, then, how can you say that inherent racism is definitely a factor in those who oppose Obama. I submit that you can't.
As for David Brooks, I disagree. I've read his opinion and watch him on PBS quite a bit. He is a moderate republican and while I don't always agree with him I think he is level-headed and adds balance to the discussion.
Perhaps if you don't like Brooks's opinion that it's not about race, you'll listen to Clinton:
"Bill Clinton parts with Carter on racism statement
WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton says he doesn’t think racism is a principal factor in resistance to President Barack Obama’s plan for overhauling health care.
Interviewed Tuesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Clinton said “there’s no question” racism exists in some outbursts in recent months. But he also said he believes “if he were not an African-American, all of the people who were against him on health care would still be against him. They were against me, too.”
Cinton said that “I sympathize with” former President Jimmy Carter’s feeling that racism accounts for the strenuous opposition to Obama, but said “that’s not what’s driving” Obama’s critics. Clinton said: “What’s driving them is they don’t want health care.”
I've watched David Brooks on PBS for years. He's conservative, in my book.
You could vote for Obama and still have racist tendencies. My point was, racism is now hard to see or identify, but it's still there and still drives people's decisions. They'd vote for him, would they let their daughter date him, for example?
You say the teabaggers aren't, inherently racist, I'd say many of them probably are. Neither one of us can prove it. My argument is, let's not dismiss the great possibility just because it's uncomfortable. And, lets give those with skin color other than white the benefit of the doubt, they do still experience racism and most of us whites don't even understand that we are doing it.
Here's an example. I was in a group activity a while ago and an black woman talked about being followed around in a store here in town. She suggested that this was an example of continued racism. Another person (a white guy), said he was also followed in a store. He told this story so as to negate the idea that the former story had nothing to do with race.
It didn't. And, in my opinion, his desire to dismiss the possible racism in the actions that occurred to that woman is, in itself, a sign of racism.
This, it seems to me, is similar to your argument about Harry Reid calling Bush a liar and/or loser. Harry didn't yell it out during a Presidential speech to a joint session of Congress and Bush is white.
Certainly, people can have passion when discussing politics, but you can't simply dismiss the potential racist motives because it's uncomfortable.
Finally, I don't think it's pointless to bring up the fact that everyone is racist to a degree. I think that's the crux of the matter. To acknowledge that everyone is racist to a degree is to acknowledge that racism is alive and well. To then submit that racism doesn't play a role in the motives of the teabaggers, seems a tad hypocritical.
"You say the teabaggers aren't, inherently racist, I'd say many of them probably are. Neither one of us can prove it. My argument is, let's not dismiss the great possibility just because it's uncomfortable."
I din't say that. What I am saying is that I don't think it is accurate to state that they are protesting Obama's policies because of race. I take issue with your insinuation that I am dismissing the possibility of racism because it is uncomfortable. You are assuming quite a bit about me which is untrue.
I find it interesting that you would err on the side that the protestors are racist. Why is it ok for someone to call someone a racist without evidence when it is not ok to be a racist? This is equally immoral in my book.
And you are wrong that no one protested during Clinton. There were protests against NAFTA, the NATO bombings and for impeaching Clinton over Lewinsky to name a few. Some of the signs were nasty, calling Clinton a communist or a rapist. You should also check out some of the signs used in anti-Bush protests...they are reminiscent of the Obama protests.
When you say this: "To acknowledge that everyone is racist to a degree is to acknowledge that racism is alive and well. To then submit that racism doesn't play a role in the motives of the teabaggers, seems a tad hypocritical."... I think you are not understanding me and mischaracterizing what I am saying. Maybe I'm just doing a lousy job of making my point. I will leave it at that.
"As a woman, you should be concerned when any man crosses the street toward you, but are you able to recognize that you are more concerned that he is black....or hispanic?"
David Brooks, a white guy, doesn't "think" the tea bag parties has much to do with racism because he saw white folk visiting with black folk at one of the rally's. Not real strong evidence to support his notion. In fact, it's almost insulting.
Stronger evidence would be the huge amount of history of racism in this country, most significantly with the less progressive population. To not think that at least some at those demonstrators aren't motivated by race would be silly (and, I know you aren't advocating this). The question then becomes, what percentage of those people are motivated by racism?
David Brooks (and, apparently, you) want to assume that racism isn't a significant part of these events. That's fine. But, I believe they are. And, I believe this, once again, based on our history of racism.
By the way, had Hillary been elected and they held similar tea parties, I would believe that much of those protests would have to do with sexism. You don't elect one black guy to be President and suddenly end or even significantly reduce, inherent racism.
The significant difference between those who go to the tea parties and the protests of past Presidents is that those who go to the tea parties don't even have a united message. Anti-protesters are pretty united in their message. Those who protested Clinton (and they were not well organized protests), didn't like that he lied to them (not that it was any of their business in the first place).
I maintain that many tea party folks are there because they don't like having a black president...even if they do talk to black people. What policies has Obama enacted that they are protesting??
I'm sorry you were offended by my remark regarding a man crossing the street toward you. But, I don't think I'm wrong. A white guy crosses the street toward you in the middle of the day and I'd bet your sense of danger is less than if a black guy does. Personally, given our history, I'd say it's almost natural. The issue, to me, isn't that you might have more concern that a black man is coming toward you, but whether you can identify the difference in yourself. Of course, maybe you have been able to overcome centuries of inherent racism and you no longer "see" color, but I would guess most couldn't honestly say that.
We can't begin to recognize and understand the racism in our society (or racist motives) until we understand our own personal tendencies regarding racist thinking.
As for Brooks, I appreciate your perspective that he is moderate, but that's because what we now think of as moderate, I used to call right wing. Wayne Morse was a moderate. Brooks is conservative until he finds it more palatable to be "moderate". The man helped start the Weekly Standard. If that's not conservative, I guess I'm even more liberal than I thought.
"A white guy crosses the street toward you in the middle of the day and I'd bet your sense of danger is less than if a black guy does."
I think this says more about your prejudice than it does about any 'fact' that women will be prejudice in this situation. Let me make my point by asking you this:
What does the black guy crossing the street look like? How is he dressed? What is his body language?
Gotta run. Maybe you're right, Vicky. Maybe I'm projecting my own prejudice. But, I'm guessing that the sight of a black man crossing versus a white man crossing makes many feel differently, no matter the dress code.
Again, maybe just my own prejudice...It'd be great if you're right and I'm wrong.
Ajai, thanks for the link, but I'm not going to read past this inaccurate statement:
"Virtually the entire conservative world has waxed indignant about Jimmy Carter's suggestion that racism is responsible for the unusual virulence of anti-Obama sentiment."
So, first it's becaus Brooks is conservative. Then, when I gave Clinton as an example, Tom says, well, he didn't really experience the same type of protest.
Now, here is Obama, the man, himself, saying it's (mostly) not about race. Perhaps he's just faking it to be nice.
"But, I'm guessing that the sight of a black man crossing versus a white man crossing makes many feel differently, no matter the dress code."
Black man looks like Bill Cosby and is crossing the street and says, 'Excuse me, can you tell me where Richardson Hall is'?. White man has the gangsta look and looks nervous and figity, looks around when he crosses the street.
My gut reaction is going to be against the white guy.
Of course I think I'm smart enough to know that the most harmless looking people can be the most dangerous, black, brown, white, yellow, or red. But I don't walk around in daylight on campus with my pepper spray ready either.
Of course policy decisions do come into play, and Obama has done bad things like...um...having czars, promoting the US in the 2016 Olympics, talking to schoolchildren...just reasoned policy disputes?
Say there was a party with people, and there were a couple of people who said very racist things. The other people at the party don't stand up to them, they don't correct them, they don't even acknowledge the racist things they say. At that point it might not be too much of a stretch to assume that this was a racist party, and I would leave the it for my own personal safety.
BTW, I don't like the watering down of words. It has been done with 'socialism' and 'terrorism'. I think the author waters down the term 'racism' and I don't view it the same way as he does.
Everyone's a little racist, as the song goes, meaning everyone has some bias, and some is skin deep, I mean, it is an initial impression.
I was born here. My first experiences dealing with racism was when I was a child. Now, my brother hasn't had the same experiences, so his opinions on the matter differ greatly, as our experiences bias us.
The more I learned about racism from a sociological perspective, the more the world made sense to me, and the more I was able to interact with it. I came from a good family, and had good support. I understood that there was a bias, and it was real, so I didn't have to feel like there was something wrong with me. You know, like when Jasira told the boy she was babysitting not to call her a towelhead.
I happen to agree with the theory that a good way to understand prejudice is to recognize it in ourselves. But I don't dwell on it or affirm it, I admit a bias is there, then I try to move past it. This is a physiological response, not a consciously hateful one. How easy is it to control fear?
I just posted the column as fodder for thought, it is interesting to take in various opinions.
But, we may be talking past each other. I am not saying everyone is a total racist and is guided by racism only, and you are not saying that racism does not exist...so I guess we disagree on word choice and degree.
I do wonder, though, would you feel comfortable taking your son to a tea-party or a McCain/Palin rally during the election? I would argue that it could be bad, but that is my own bias, you may have a perfectly lovely time, you know, politics aside. I don't think I'd be comfortable, unless I had a camera and was trying to make some Bruno like film.
For what it's worth I like the more recent column of Brooks. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/opinion/02brooks.html?_r=2&em
Here it is without the offending statement, so you can get past it:
Listening to it all, you'd think the so-called "race card" was a much bigger problem in American society than racism itself, and that does seem to be what a lot of conservatives think. But it's getting to the point where the argument seems to be that if anti-Obama protesters have any non-racial motives for their behavior, then mentioning race as any sort of factor (hard to avoid given the revival of screaming about "welfare" and the preoccupation with the marginal organzing group ACORN) is a terrible insult.
Witness David Brooks' unintentionally hilarious column in the New York Times today. David jogged through last Saturday's Tea Party demonstration on The Mall, and can assure us all that there were no racists there:
[A]s I got to where the Smithsonian museums start, I came across another rally, the Black Family Reunion Celebration. Several thousand people had gathered to celebrate African-American culture. I noticed that the mostly white tea party protesters were mingling in with the mostly black family reunion celebrants. The tea party people were buying lunch from the family reunion food stands. They had joined the audience of a rap concert.
Now David is a Yankee, so perhaps he can be forgiven for believing that mingling with black folks, listening to their music, and allowing them to prepare one's food are things no racist could possibly do. If that's the case, of course, there's never been any racism in the Deep South, and neo-Confederate sentiments really are and were just about abstractions like "states' rights."
Unfortunately, the Brooks column never much rises above this sort of superficial argument that if there's any evidence of non-racism among Obama opponents, then even mentioning racism is an outrage.
His main contention is that the Tea Party movement reflects an authentic all-American populist tradition dating back to Jefferson that is "ill mannered, conspiratorial and over the top — since these movements always are, whether they were led by Huey Long, Father Coughlin or anybody else." So it's "not race," says Brooks. "It's another type of conflict, equally deep and old," and it's mainly about Obama's "elitism" and a "producerist" revolt against redistributionist policies. Nothing to see here, folks, it's just good old-fashioned American populism....
You'd think maybe his own reference to Father Coughlin as an example of right-wing populism would alert Brooks to the folly of his argument. Was Coughlin solely motivated by anti-semitism? No, almost certainly not. Does that mean the anti-semitism he stimulated wasn't real and dangerous, leading eventually to his suppression by his own bishop? Absolutely not.
Lord have mercy, David, think about it: the Ku Klux Klan wasn't just "about race;" it was about hostility to immigrants and to some extent to capitalism; early twentieth-century Kluxers, in alliance with William Jennings Bryan, thought of themselves as "progressives." That was rather cold comfort to the people they tormented and threatened.
No, I am not comparing the Tea Party folks to Klansman; I am simply noting that every racially tinged political movement in American history has, of course, had other, non-racial motivations, so simply citing such motivations doesn't address the possibility of racial motivations.
It makes you wonder: what if Jimmy Carter had simply said that Obama's angry opponents were "ill mannered, conspiratorial and over the top." I suspect the overall conservative reaction would have been just about as wounded and self-pitying, but I doubt David Brooks would have agreed with him.
Indeed, this column concludes with the signature Brooks assertion of the equivalency of right-wing craziness and the reaction to it:
What we’re seeing is the latest iteration of that populist tendency and the militant progressive reaction to it. We now have a populist news media that exaggerates the importance of the Van Jones and Acorn stories to prove the elites are decadent and un-American, and we have a progressive news media that exaggerates stories like the Joe Wilson shout and the opposition to the Obama schools speech to show that small-town folks are dumb wackos.
So if you object to Glenn Becks's ravings, you're as guilty as he is of extremism, and moreover, you think small-town folks are dumb wackos.
That charge is at least as offensive as any over-attribution of racial motives to Obama-haters.
Posted by Ed Kilgore on September 18, 2009 11:53 AM
Ajai, I DID go back and read the article after posting that comment. I'm human and reacted, but I still don't agree with the author. Read the second comment posted by George. That is pretty much how I feel about the whole issue.
I found this to be a fantastic conversation. I couldn't help but think that not long ago in our nation's history this converstation would have never taken place:
That is a good comment. I'm not sure how populism, or anti-elitism is quantified, and would argue that that anger is misdirected, but that is beside the point, though I still don't see how one factor many preclude the other.
"I do wonder, though, would you feel comfortable taking your son to a tea-party or a McCain/Palin rally during the election? I would argue that it could be bad, but that is my own bias, you may have a perfectly lovely time, you know, politics aside. I don't think I'd be comfortable, unless I had a camera and was trying to make some Bruno like film."
This is difficult, at best, to answer without more specifics. I don't feel uncomfortable taking my son to a big family gathering with all white people. You may argue that this is because it is my family and they accept me and my son, but what is the difference, really?
I wouldn't feel comfortable going MYSELF to a group of obvious racists, say a bunch of KKKs out of the costume, just knowing what racists they are. But I don't think that's what the teabagger parties are like. Why would it be any different than any other public place where there are going to be those who are racist in the crowd and those who aren't?
I guess the difference is in most crowds racism is something that is frowned upon. It might be kind of like a Pantera concert, not a lot of there music is racist, but a lot of racists like their music.
I don't completely agree with any of them...I think they all have legitimate points and the conversation shows what a complex topic race can be.
----
I did see on Google that it is Gandhi's birthday. Interestingly, someone recently gave me the Concert for Bangladesh video to watch. I didn't realize that Bangladesh was a split from Pakistan. An extension of the story from Gandhi's time.
Great points, both of you! Vicky, please don't be offended by my opinions. I respect you and your opinions. On this issue, we will just have to agree to disagree. Having said that, here is what Tim Wise has to say about all of this.
No worries, Tom and I apologize about getting a bit snarly. I do respect your opinions as well and don't expect you to agree with me on everything.
I read the Tim Wise article. He makes some excellent points even though I don't agree with him completely.
I can't read the protestors' minds any more than he can. While I think that some of them must mean that they want to go back to the days of blatant oppression of people of color, I don't think that they all mean this. I, myself, like to quote Jefferson quite a bit, but that does not mean that I think he was right to own slaves. On this point I think Wise is being a bit narrow-minded. He is calling those who directly told him that that is not what they meant liars, and I don't think that's fair.
I agree that if the protestors were anti-racist then they would dissociate themselves from those who are carrying the 'Go back to Kenya' signs. But I can't say that I would approach a guy with a Confederate Flag tattoo and a sign like that and chastise him. I suppose you could argue that being passive about it is in itself racist, but is it possible to not be racist and not fight against racism? I think so. There are many things that I think unjust in the world but I don't necessarily fight in the war against them. So, I'm not sure on this point whether I would call those people racist..just not sure.
I did some surfing yesterday to see some of the signs at the teabagger protests and found one site with a slide show of alot of the signs. Unfortunatley it is not clear whether these were at one particular tea party or a compilation. Regardless, I counted the ones that were blatantly racist ("Go Back to Kenya"..."You belong in a zoo"...etc.) and it was something like 7 out of 43 of the signs if you include some more ambiguous ones ("Your ears are big"...don't know if that's commenting on race or not).
To me this points out a sad fact that there are a lot of proud racists there and that is something that needs to be wiped out. But the majority of the signs still weren't racist.
What all that means I'm not sure, but I did pause to wonder if David Brooks didn't see any of these signs. He could have at least mentioned this aspect in his opinion even if he thinks most of the protest is not about race.
I wanted to thank you for the book reference by Wise too, Tom. I don't know if I'll read it, but I'll tuck it away in my mind and may read it, trying to be open-minded. I just think it is a bit elementary to point out white priveledge, perhaps a bit sanctimonious, but again, trying to keep an open mind. Maybe I'm being sanctimonious calling him sanctimonious, eh? :)
I hope to continue topics such as these; I think challenging my opinions and learning a thing or two to be important endeavors.
Very interesting discussion... I can see the merits/logic of both sides of the argument. I think we do all have our biases (however I don't think thhis makes us all racist). I do tend to go with Vicky on this one. Without rehashing all of this, I say, great points of view!
Thanks for the excellent response, Vicky. You make some great points. And, I'm beginning to ease up on David Brooks. I've watched him over the years on PBS and have been frustrated, more than once, over his making crap up. But, I will agree, he's no Rush or Glen Beck! (of course, I'm not sure that's saying much!). He does make an excellent point that right wing radio hasn't had much impact on voters. Actually, makes me feel a bit better about things.
As for racism, I don't know, maybe it's the word. We think of racists as those guys that wear sheets on their heads and hang people from trees. But, what do we call those who make decisions based on skin color? Biased? What about those that are just uncomfortable with a black president? Are they just misguided?
I don't know the answer, but I don't think we should easily dismiss the great possibility that many at these tea party events are motivated, to some extent, by the race of our president. Call it racism, call it bias, call it what you want, it's just something to take note of and know that we all can do a little better in this area.
"But, what do we call those who make decisions based on skin color? Biased? What about those that are just uncomfortable with a black president? Are they just misguided?"
I didn't find this article particularly intelligent. Racism is the only thing that would account for such unwarranted hostility.
ReplyDeleteThese articles are written with more knowledge.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html
Here's the second one:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/opinion/16dowd.html
Ajai, thanks for the Dowd opinions. I think Brooks sums it up well when he says, "Well, I don’t have a machine for peering into the souls of Obama’s critics, so I can’t measure how much racism is in there. But my impression is that race is largely beside the point. There are other, equally important strains in American history that are far more germane to the current conflicts."
ReplyDeleteIf race were the most important motivator of the group he witnessed in DC, then why were the teabaggers hanging with the African American group?
In Joe Wilson's case, yes, it looks like the guy is motivated by race, if not in whole that at least in part. But, Clinton was called all kind of names, communist, etc. and people protested their policies as well. You can't claim that that was motivated by race.
Why were they hanging out? I don't know, maybe they hid the signs with Obama dressed like a witch doctor, or the directives telling him to go back to Kenya. Who knows?
ReplyDeleteRacism has little to do with hanging out, or 'liking' the other. It has more to do with the complicit acceoptance of an insitutionally racist status quo. It has more to do with advancing a climate where they president doesn't get the respect of being looked in the eye, or the normal respectful customs usually associated with a president.
Of course not ALL criticism of Obama is racially motivated, nobody ever said it was. It's not an all or nothing proposition. It would be wrong to say it was all racist, and it is equally wrong to just assume it is not a factor. That would be denial, when the racist messages are pretty obvious.
Not all of his opponents are racist, but a good many are not afraid to use racism to oppose him.
http://tinyurl.com/kjuezq
This is the best line in the whole of that opinion:
ReplyDelete"And the best way to foster that self-reflection is through telling the truth in a way that doesn't make people defensive or point fingers--except at those who wear their prejudice proudly and deserve our scorn."
"Racism has little to do with hanging out, or 'liking' the other. It has more to do with the complicit acceoptance of an insitutionally racist status quo. It has more to do with advancing a climate where they president doesn't get the respect of being looked in the eye, or the normal respectful customs usually associated with a president."
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is ONE definition of racist. There are many definitions, degrees, etc. My point, and David Brooks's, is that people disagree with Obama on POLICY. Can you admit that? You cannot say that the protests are about race and be accurate. That is what I am saying. Or we would need to come up with some prejudice against Bush for why he is so hated. Maybe because he's a Texan?
"...demographers now place it around 2040--when whites are in the minority in the U.S."
ReplyDeleteI have a problem with this wording and the thinking behind it. It only perpetuates the white/non-white dichotomy. Are Latinos, African-Americans, and Asian-Americans all the same ethnicity? Unless the speaker/writer means that there will be fewer caucasians than ANY of these other groups, then this argument is BS.
The US has a history of white supremacy, but they will soon be in the minority. This is true. Whites are the ones who are hung up on racial purity, and I know from experience that they will get defensive no matter what. The denial of their history is so great.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what the protests are about, all I see is a bunch of racist anger, at least that is all that is being articulated. Racism and fear.
I hated Bush because I understood his policy. The same cannot be said for Obama bashers. We've only had one African-American president, and they call him a Nazi. If that's not racist, then I'm not sure what is.
"Whites are the ones who are hung up on racial purity, and I know from experience that they will get defensive no matter what."
ReplyDeleteI hope that you mean SOME whites are hung up on racial purity. I don't know anyone who is a neo-Nazi or a White Supremist. That would be a joke since I don't think I know anyone who's racially pure...most of us are mutts. Me, I'm Irish, German and Scottish. No, that's not half-black, half-white, but I certainly don't call it racially pure.
By the way, many Native Americans reject names that group them all together and they go by their tribe name. Racial purists?
"Whites are the ones who are hung up on racial purity, and I know from experience that they will get defensive no matter what. The denial of their history is so great."
ReplyDeleteWow, there's that tolerance that I've come to expect... I am not an Obama guy so I must be racist right? Or is it just that I am paranoid? How about any other mental disorders? Or is it just because I am white?
Denial of "their" history? I fully admit that white people have oppressed poeple of color. I have to ask though, do you have information on my history? Or my families history? Do you place me into a catagory simply because I am white?
Just to be clear I have never owned a slave, nor has any of my releatives going back to my quaker family history. Not sure if they had racsit history back in Holland during the 17th century. I've never worn a white sheet as a mask,(except one halloween when I was about four) and I don't have anything against people of color. I judge people by who they are not their skin color...
In fact I like to think of myself as a somewhat cultured person. I have traveled in South America, and all over the U.S. including the south.
If you disagree with me then fine, but please don't call me, or imply that I am a racist simply because of it!
"I'm Irish, German and Scottish."
ReplyDeleteNot sure whether or not Hitler would have killed me. He was apparently more tolerant of those who spoke germanic languages, but the fact that I have brown hair would have definitely made me impure! He probably would have just killed any American and considered them impure...too much risk of 'mixing'.
"Whites are the ones who are hung up on racial purity"
ReplyDeleteThis is not true. There are many ethnicities, even in the US, that do not accept inter-racial marriages. Being of Indian decent, do you not know people like this? There are racial purists in every ethnicity.
A lot of white people voted for Obama. Here's an article on how votes are split by ethnicity. Of course, you can't always uncouple race and political party, but these are important numbers:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html
I think this statistic shows how far we have come as a nation on race issues:
"A stunning 54 percent of young white voters supported Obama, compared with 44 percent who went for McCain, the senator from Arizona. In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young whites."
uhhh, since I didn't vote for Obama does that make me racist?
ReplyDeleteYou know, Me, along with 44% of Americans? How about blue dog Democrats? They must be racist too...
At what point does this become crazy. Can't it just be a difference in views on policy, and not race?
I agree with you, COE.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Blue Dogs, they should just go to the other side of the aisle as far as I'm concerned!
:)
I actually thought about voting for Lieberman :) I just couldn't swallow the koolaid that was Gore... :)
ReplyDeleteHey, at one time I thought McCain wasn't too bad either!! That was way before Palin and the election though.
ReplyDeleteBeing that racial purity is at best unrealistic, race must be a social construct.
ReplyDeleteI do not doubt that all races have people that oppose miscegenation or attempt to commit genocide.
However, in much of western cultural there is an ideal for the normative person, and this is set by the majority. As racial lines continue to blur the system of power will shift demographically, but now the norm is White.
I am part White myself, though less than our President, but I am not classified as White. It only takes a small component of anything else, to the degree for which a person may pass for White.
However, it does not work the other way. A non-White person is not outclassed by the introduction of White blood. That strain does not change there racial classification, to the degree by which a person may pass as non-White.
Remember, race is a social construct, and systems of oppression are set by the impressions of the dominant class. Therefore, even the perception of race can be used against a person.
While not all opposition to Obama is racist, perceptions based in racism can be manipulated.
I am particularly bothered by the claims that he is not a U.S citizen. It is something that I can identify with.
It's good to be at my computer again, rather than trying to blog by iphone.
Legal segregation has only ended in the previous generation, and ramifications continue to this day, as that was a continued ramification of slavery.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theroot.com/views/birthers-and-jim-crow-20
ReplyDeleteor
http://tinyurl.com/nnnp2t
Interesting piece...I do question this statement:
ReplyDelete"More than half of Republicans aren’t convinced Obama’s a citizen? Huh?" I'd like to know where that info was obtained.
I do wonder how the middle, lower-middle, and poor classes support the likes of Beck, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh when they are getting rich off their schtick and haven't done squat to help their followers. I can only sumise that they aren't so bright.
As for the skinhead with the swashtika in the photo, I don't know that I've ever seen one in real-life myself. And I've been to some pretty white bread places, including Idaho, skin-head central. My cousin who lived there for ten years ran into a small group of them once...oh, and she said there was a parade once. I still have to think they are the fringe, which is not to say that even a small number is good at all.
Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, there is a group called SHARP, skinheads against racial prejudice. Apparently skinheads didn't start out as a white supremist group, even though now they are associated that way.
They started out being anti-being laid off, which led to xenophobic tendencies. I remember SHARPS I knew in high school, and have always considerd them good allies.
ReplyDelete"The 1920s were a time of heightened racial tension throughout the United States, and Oregon was no exception. The Klu Klux Klan organized in Oregon in 1921 and began terrorizing blacks and other minorities throughout the state, including Salem. Charles Maxwell, the owner of a shoeshine shop in Salem, received a threatening letter which read “We have stood you as long as we intend to stand you, and you must unload, if you don’t we will come to see you.” It was signed KKK over a skull and crossbones. Maxwell refused to be bullied; he remained in Salem and in 1928 opened the Fat Boy Barbecue restaurant in the Hollywood section. The business was successful until a bank foreclosure during the Depression. Maxwell’s daughter Maxine was also the victim of racism; in 1929 she was denied a room in the women’s dormitory at Oregon State University because she was black. In the 1930s, the Maxwell family moved to California, as did many blacks from Oregon."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.salemhistory.net/people/african_americans.htm
If a lie (Obama is not a citizen) is repeated often enough, eventually more and more people will believe it.
ReplyDeleteThe fringe is still quite dangerous, and recruiting since Obama took office.
The Roots column articulately identifies the connection between financial anxieties and racial tensions, and how this is manipulated. If only more would see the common goals in helping this nation persevere.
ReplyDeleteNot to nit-pick, but it's the Ku Klux Klan, no l in the first word.
ReplyDeleteThe 20s and 30s are ancient history. Not that we should forget that history, as the saying goes. I'm not denying that there is too much racism in this country, but I like to focus on what progress has been made as well. Both are an important part of the solution.
I think I added that 'l,' it sounded right to me at the time, but I was pretty tired.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of history, I saw a crazy movie from 1970 called 'Watermelon Man' last night. They sometimes show Blaxploitation films on Retro.
ReplyDeleteWell, sorry to be so late to the discussion, but I'd like to add my two cents. My apologies if this has already been stated and I missed it, but...
ReplyDeleteDavid Brooks? Really? We are interested in David Brooks analysis of racism in America? Sorry, but I've never found him to be all that enlightened and he seems to restate what those who deny the vast racism in this country want people to believe.
I saw white people talking to black people, so racism is not at the core of the tea party, parties. No, I don't think that logic follows.
What many of us "white" folks tend to think is that, since things are so much better now than they were in the 50's, then the "small" amount of racism that we "see" from time to time is hardly worth complaining about. But, the problem is in their inability to identify inherent racism.
Why do you suppose that Joe Wilson felt comfortable enough to shout out during a presidential speech? Here's my take...lack of respect. And, I believe this lack of respect is not just lack of respect for this particular president, but lack of respect for those with black skin. Lots of Republicans HATED Clinton. Nobody yelled at him when he addressed Congress.
Racism is no longer an "overt" issue, it is a highly covert issue. And, many of us don't even recognize when we are exhibiting covert racism.
It can be anything from being disrespectful to our current President during a speech to Congress or just being a bit "worried" when a black guy crosses the street toward you.
As a woman, you should be concerned when any man crosses the street toward you, but are you able to recognize that you are more concerned that he is black....or hispanic?
Tim Wise wrote a book called White Like Me. I'd encourage everyone to read it. He does an outstanding job identifying covert racism. As an example of this, he points out a study that was done where various people applied for jobs throughout the country. They all had the exact same credentials, but their names were different. There were Joe's and Stans and Jim's and Sue's and Alice's. And, there were Jemmont's, and Shanice's and Jada's and Jamal's (these weren't the exact names, but you get the picture). At a very high rate, the "white" names got calls for interviews and the "black" names didn't.
This is an example of racism that is hard to see and it happens all the time. I would not easily dismiss the motives of those at those tea bag parties. I have no doubt that many are, at their core, racists. Maybe not, let's hang 'em in a tree racists, but more, I'm not hiring anyone named Jamal, racists.
My (very long) two cents.
I stand by my opinion that people oppose Obama on policy. Again, I am not denying that there is a race issue regarding Obama as well, but I think if the president were white and were putting into place the policies that Obama is, there would be tea baggers protesting the 'socialist' movement.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, Harry Reid called Bush a loser and a liar. No race issue there:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/06/AR2005050601814.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/Reid_called_Bush_liar_stood_by_comment.html
And, again, I do think Joe Wilson is racist, but that doesn't make everyone who opposes Obama's policies racist. With all due repsect, I think it is pointless to bring up the fact that everyone is racist to a degree. Obviously a majority of young whites voted for Obama, so what happened to their inherent racism? If you say that they overcame it, well, then, how can you say that inherent racism is definitely a factor in those who oppose Obama. I submit that you can't.
As for David Brooks, I disagree. I've read his opinion and watch him on PBS quite a bit. He is a moderate republican and while I don't always agree with him I think he is level-headed and adds balance to the discussion.
Perhaps if you don't like Brooks's opinion that it's not about race, you'll listen to Clinton:
ReplyDelete"Bill Clinton parts with Carter on racism statement
WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton says he doesn’t think racism is a principal factor in resistance to President Barack Obama’s plan for overhauling health care.
Interviewed Tuesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Clinton said “there’s no question” racism exists in some outbursts in recent months. But he also said he believes “if he were not an African-American, all of the people who were against him on health care would still be against him. They were against me, too.”
Cinton said that “I sympathize with” former President Jimmy Carter’s feeling that racism accounts for the strenuous opposition to Obama, but said “that’s not what’s driving” Obama’s critics. Clinton said: “What’s driving them is they don’t want health care.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/bill-clinton-carter-wrong_n_294526.html
I've watched David Brooks on PBS for years. He's conservative, in my book.
ReplyDeleteYou could vote for Obama and still have racist tendencies. My point was, racism is now hard to see or identify, but it's still there and still drives people's decisions. They'd vote for him, would they let their daughter date him, for example?
You say the teabaggers aren't, inherently racist, I'd say many of them probably are. Neither one of us can prove it. My argument is, let's not dismiss the great possibility just because it's uncomfortable. And, lets give those with skin color other than white the benefit of the doubt, they do still experience racism and most of us whites don't even understand that we are doing it.
Here's an example. I was in a group activity a while ago and an black woman talked about being followed around in a store here in town. She suggested that this was an example of continued racism. Another person (a white guy), said he was also followed in a store. He told this story so as to negate the idea that the former story had nothing to do with race.
It didn't. And, in my opinion, his desire to dismiss the possible racism in the actions that occurred to that woman is, in itself, a sign of racism.
This, it seems to me, is similar to your argument about Harry Reid calling Bush a liar and/or loser. Harry didn't yell it out during a Presidential speech to a joint session of Congress and Bush is white.
Certainly, people can have passion when discussing politics, but you can't simply dismiss the potential racist motives because it's uncomfortable.
Finally, I don't think it's pointless to bring up the fact that everyone is racist to a degree. I think that's the crux of the matter. To acknowledge that everyone is racist to a degree is to acknowledge that racism is alive and well. To then submit that racism doesn't play a role in the motives of the teabaggers, seems a tad hypocritical.
Just my opinion.
"Perhaps if you don't like Brooks's opinion that it's not about race, you'll listen to Clinton:"
ReplyDeleteI don't remember tea parties during the Clinton administration.
"You say the teabaggers aren't, inherently racist, I'd say many of them probably are. Neither one of us can prove it. My argument is, let's not dismiss the great possibility just because it's uncomfortable."
ReplyDeleteI din't say that. What I am saying is that I don't think it is accurate to state that they are protesting Obama's policies because of race. I take issue with your insinuation that I am dismissing the possibility of racism because it is uncomfortable. You are assuming quite a bit about me which is untrue.
I find it interesting that you would err on the side that the protestors are racist. Why is it ok for someone to call someone a racist without evidence when it is not ok to be a racist? This is equally immoral in my book.
And you are wrong that no one protested during Clinton. There were protests against NAFTA, the NATO bombings and for impeaching Clinton over Lewinsky to name a few. Some of the signs were nasty, calling Clinton a communist or a rapist. You should also check out some of the signs used in anti-Bush protests...they are reminiscent of the Obama protests.
When you say this: "To acknowledge that everyone is racist to a degree is to acknowledge that racism is alive and well. To then submit that racism doesn't play a role in the motives of the teabaggers, seems a tad hypocritical."... I think you are not understanding me and mischaracterizing what I am saying. Maybe I'm just doing a lousy job of making my point. I will leave it at that.
"As a woman, you should be concerned when any man crosses the street toward you, but are you able to recognize that you are more concerned that he is black....or hispanic?"
ReplyDeleteI find this a rather offensive generalization.
Brooks is a moderate republican. Check out the wikipedia page on him. He breaks with republicans on many issues.
ReplyDelete'Why is it ok for someone to call someone a racist without evidence...'
ReplyDeleteEvidence? Look at the protests.
Maybe they aren't racists at heart, they just use racist propaganda.
ReplyDeleteDavid Brooks, a white guy, doesn't "think" the tea bag parties has much to do with racism because he saw white folk visiting with black folk at one of the rally's. Not real strong evidence to support his notion. In fact, it's almost insulting.
ReplyDeleteStronger evidence would be the huge amount of history of racism in this country, most significantly with the less progressive population. To not think that at least some at those demonstrators aren't motivated by race would be silly (and, I know you aren't advocating this). The question then becomes, what percentage of those people are motivated by racism?
David Brooks (and, apparently, you) want to assume that racism isn't a significant part of these events. That's fine. But, I believe they are. And, I believe this, once again, based on our history of racism.
By the way, had Hillary been elected and they held similar tea parties, I would believe that much of those protests would have to do with sexism. You don't elect one black guy to be President and suddenly end or even significantly reduce, inherent racism.
The significant difference between those who go to the tea parties and the protests of past Presidents is that those who go to the tea parties don't even have a united message. Anti-protesters are pretty united in their message. Those who protested Clinton (and they were not well organized protests), didn't like that he lied to them (not that it was any of their business in the first place).
I maintain that many tea party folks are there because they don't like having a black president...even if they do talk to black people. What policies has Obama enacted that they are protesting??
I'm sorry you were offended by my remark regarding a man crossing the street toward you. But, I don't think I'm wrong. A white guy crosses the street toward you in the middle of the day and I'd bet your sense of danger is less than if a black guy does. Personally, given our history, I'd say it's almost natural. The issue, to me, isn't that you might have more concern that a black man is coming toward you, but whether you can identify the difference in yourself. Of course, maybe you have been able to overcome centuries of inherent racism and you no longer "see" color, but I would guess most couldn't honestly say that.
We can't begin to recognize and understand the racism in our society (or racist motives) until we understand our own personal tendencies regarding racist thinking.
As for Brooks, I appreciate your perspective that he is moderate, but that's because what we now think of as moderate, I used to call right wing. Wayne Morse was a moderate. Brooks is conservative until he finds it more palatable to be "moderate". The man helped start the Weekly Standard. If that's not conservative, I guess I'm even more liberal than I thought.
Fixing mistakes;
ReplyDeleteFirst paragraph should read;
"with black folk at one of the rallys" or should it be "rallies"?
Fifth paragraph should read;
"Anti-War protesters are pretty united in their message."
There's probably more, but those are the ones I just saw...
It's not an all or nothing thing. Racism is not the only impetus, but certainly seems to be a factor at times.
ReplyDelete"A white guy crosses the street toward you in the middle of the day and I'd bet your sense of danger is less than if a black guy does."
ReplyDeleteI think this says more about your prejudice than it does about any 'fact' that women will be prejudice in this situation. Let me make my point by asking you this:
What does the black guy crossing the street look like? How is he dressed? What is his body language?
Now, what about the white guy?
'...had Hillary been elected...'
ReplyDeleteOh, can you imagine, I think some of her criticism is sexist as Secretary of State.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/teabagger-mark-williams-says-obama-indo
ReplyDeleteGotta run. Maybe you're right, Vicky. Maybe I'm projecting my own prejudice. But, I'm guessing that the sight of a black man crossing versus a white man crossing makes many feel differently, no matter the dress code.
ReplyDeleteAgain, maybe just my own prejudice...It'd be great if you're right and I'm wrong.
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2009/09/david_brooks_and_antiantiracis.php
ReplyDeleteAjai, thanks for the link, but I'm not going to read past this inaccurate statement:
ReplyDelete"Virtually the entire conservative world has waxed indignant about Jimmy Carter's suggestion that racism is responsible for the unusual virulence of anti-Obama sentiment."
So, first it's becaus Brooks is conservative. Then, when I gave Clinton as an example, Tom says, well, he didn't really experience the same type of protest.
Now, here is Obama, the man, himself, saying it's (mostly) not about race. Perhaps he's just faking it to be nice.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27330.html
"But, I'm guessing that the sight of a black man crossing versus a white man crossing makes many feel differently, no matter the dress code."
ReplyDeleteBlack man looks like Bill Cosby and is crossing the street and says, 'Excuse me, can you tell me where Richardson Hall is'?. White man has the gangsta look and looks nervous and figity, looks around when he crosses the street.
My gut reaction is going to be against the white guy.
Of course I think I'm smart enough to know that the most harmless looking people can be the most dangerous, black, brown, white, yellow, or red. But I don't walk around in daylight on campus with my pepper spray ready either.
Re your link to the teabagger whacko, yes, there are some in every crowd. Doesn't mean they all, or even a majoriy are, like him.
ReplyDeleteI never said anything to the contrary, but he was a leader.
ReplyDeleteBill Cosby thought Jimmy Carter had a point.
http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/09/bill-cosby-jimmy-carter-obama-racism.html
These are the 'leaders,' I'm not sure what else the opposition is offering.
Again, not all opposition is racist, it's just awfully comfortable around racism, and using racist language.
Of course policy decisions do come into play, and Obama has done bad things like...um...having czars, promoting the US in the 2016 Olympics, talking to schoolchildren...just reasoned policy disputes?
ReplyDeleteSay there was a party with people, and there were a couple of people who said very racist things. The other people at the party don't stand up to them, they don't correct them, they don't even acknowledge the racist things they say. At that point it might not be too much of a stretch to assume that this was a racist party, and I would leave the it for my own personal safety.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-wilson/its-better-to-be-racist-t_b_307722.html
ReplyDeleteMy son is part African-American.
ReplyDeleteI like to think I am neither racist nor colorblind, thank you.
BTW, I don't like the watering down of words. It has been done with 'socialism' and 'terrorism'. I think the author waters down the term 'racism' and I don't view it the same way as he does.
ReplyDeleteEveryone's a little racist, as the song goes, meaning everyone has some bias, and some is skin deep, I mean, it is an initial impression.
ReplyDeleteI was born here. My first experiences dealing with racism was when I was a child. Now, my brother hasn't had the same experiences, so his opinions on the matter differ greatly, as our experiences bias us.
The more I learned about racism from a sociological perspective, the more the world made sense to me, and the more I was able to interact with it. I came from a good family, and had good support. I understood that there was a bias, and it was real, so I didn't have to feel like there was something wrong with me. You know, like when Jasira told the boy she was babysitting not to call her a towelhead.
I happen to agree with the theory that a good way to understand prejudice is to recognize it in ourselves. But I don't dwell on it or affirm it, I admit a bias is there, then I try to move past it. This is a physiological response, not a consciously hateful one. How easy is it to control fear?
I just posted the column as fodder for thought, it is interesting to take in various opinions.
But, we may be talking past each other. I am not saying everyone is a total racist and is guided by racism only, and you are not saying that racism does not exist...so I guess we disagree on word choice and degree.
I do wonder, though, would you feel comfortable taking your son to a tea-party or a McCain/Palin rally during the election? I would argue that it could be bad, but that is my own bias, you may have a perfectly lovely time, you know, politics aside. I don't think I'd be comfortable, unless I had a camera and was trying to make some Bruno like film.
For what it's worth I like the more recent column of Brooks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/opinion/02brooks.html?_r=2&em
Happy Gandhi's birthday to you.
'Now, here is Obama, the man, himself, saying it's (mostly) not about race. Perhaps he's just faking it to be nice.'
ReplyDeleteYou think Obama CAN say anything else?
'but I'm not going to read past this inaccurate statement:'
ReplyDeleteThen I guess you didn't get to the part where he exposes Brooks for defending an anti-Semite. Too bad.
I did you the favor of reading the original post, but if you will not even acknowledge my posts I see little point in responding to yours.
Here it is without the offending statement, so you can get past it:
ReplyDeleteListening to it all, you'd think the so-called "race card" was a much bigger problem in American society than racism itself, and that does seem to be what a lot of conservatives think. But it's getting to the point where the argument seems to be that if anti-Obama protesters have any non-racial motives for their behavior, then mentioning race as any sort of factor (hard to avoid given the revival of screaming about "welfare" and the preoccupation with the marginal organzing group ACORN) is a terrible insult.
Witness David Brooks' unintentionally hilarious column in the New York Times today. David jogged through last Saturday's Tea Party demonstration on The Mall, and can assure us all that there were no racists there:
[A]s I got to where the Smithsonian museums start, I came across another rally, the Black Family Reunion Celebration. Several thousand people had gathered to celebrate African-American culture. I noticed that the mostly white tea party protesters were mingling in with the mostly black family reunion celebrants. The tea party people were buying lunch from the family reunion food stands. They had joined the audience of a rap concert.
Now David is a Yankee, so perhaps he can be forgiven for believing that mingling with black folks, listening to their music, and allowing them to prepare one's food are things no racist could possibly do. If that's the case, of course, there's never been any racism in the Deep South, and neo-Confederate sentiments really are and were just about abstractions like "states' rights."
Unfortunately, the Brooks column never much rises above this sort of superficial argument that if there's any evidence of non-racism among Obama opponents, then even mentioning racism is an outrage.
His main contention is that the Tea Party movement reflects an authentic all-American populist tradition dating back to Jefferson that is "ill mannered, conspiratorial and over the top — since these movements always are, whether they were led by Huey Long, Father Coughlin or anybody else." So it's "not race," says Brooks. "It's another type of conflict, equally deep and old," and it's mainly about Obama's "elitism" and a "producerist" revolt against redistributionist policies. Nothing to see here, folks, it's just good old-fashioned American populism....
You'd think maybe his own reference to Father Coughlin as an example of right-wing populism would alert Brooks to the folly of his argument. Was Coughlin solely motivated by anti-semitism? No, almost certainly not. Does that mean the anti-semitism he stimulated wasn't real and dangerous, leading eventually to his suppression by his own bishop? Absolutely not.
ReplyDeleteLord have mercy, David, think about it: the Ku Klux Klan wasn't just "about race;" it was about hostility to immigrants and to some extent to capitalism; early twentieth-century Kluxers, in alliance with William Jennings Bryan, thought of themselves as "progressives." That was rather cold comfort to the people they tormented and threatened.
No, I am not comparing the Tea Party folks to Klansman; I am simply noting that every racially tinged political movement in American history has, of course, had other, non-racial motivations, so simply citing such motivations doesn't address the possibility of racial motivations.
It makes you wonder: what if Jimmy Carter had simply said that Obama's angry opponents were "ill mannered, conspiratorial and over the top." I suspect the overall conservative reaction would have been just about as wounded and self-pitying, but I doubt David Brooks would have agreed with him.
Indeed, this column concludes with the signature Brooks assertion of the equivalency of right-wing craziness and the reaction to it:
What we’re seeing is the latest iteration of that populist tendency and the militant progressive reaction to it. We now have a populist news media that exaggerates the importance of the Van Jones and Acorn stories to prove the elites are decadent and un-American, and we have a progressive news media that exaggerates stories like the Joe Wilson shout and the opposition to the Obama schools speech to show that small-town folks are dumb wackos.
So if you object to Glenn Becks's ravings, you're as guilty as he is of extremism, and moreover, you think small-town folks are dumb wackos.
That charge is at least as offensive as any over-attribution of racial motives to Obama-haters.
Posted by Ed Kilgore on September 18, 2009 11:53 AM
Ajai, I DID go back and read the article after posting that comment. I'm human and reacted, but I still don't agree with the author. Read the second comment posted by George. That is pretty much how I feel about the whole issue.
ReplyDeleteI found this to be a fantastic conversation. I couldn't help but think that not long ago in our nation's history this converstation would have never taken place:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.geocities.com/albanystudent/trd.html
That is a good comment. I'm not sure how populism, or anti-elitism is quantified, and would argue that that anger is misdirected, but that is beside the point, though I still don't see how one factor many preclude the other.
ReplyDelete"I do wonder, though, would you feel comfortable taking your son to a tea-party or a McCain/Palin rally during the election? I would argue that it could be bad, but that is my own bias, you may have a perfectly lovely time, you know, politics aside. I don't think I'd be comfortable, unless I had a camera and was trying to make some Bruno like film."
ReplyDeleteThis is difficult, at best, to answer without more specifics. I don't feel uncomfortable taking my son to a big family gathering with all white people. You may argue that this is because it is my family and they accept me and my son, but what is the difference, really?
I wouldn't feel comfortable going MYSELF to a group of obvious racists, say a bunch of KKKs out of the costume, just knowing what racists they are. But I don't think that's what the teabagger parties are like. Why would it be any different than any other public place where there are going to be those who are racist in the crowd and those who aren't?
I agree with STUPOR.
ReplyDeleteI guess the difference is in most crowds racism is something that is frowned upon. It might be kind of like a Pantera concert, not a lot of there music is racist, but a lot of racists like their music.
ReplyDeleteI don't completely agree with any of them...I think they all have legitimate points and the conversation shows what a complex topic race can be.
ReplyDelete----
I did see on Google that it is Gandhi's birthday. Interestingly, someone recently gave me the Concert for Bangladesh video to watch. I didn't realize that Bangladesh was a split from Pakistan. An extension of the story from Gandhi's time.
Peace.
Good music.
ReplyDeleteAnd peace to you as well.
Be sure to check the movie blog sometime soon, I'm going to try and update it this weekend.
Yes, I just adore George.
ReplyDelete"I'm going to try and update it this weekend."
Awesome! I saw Shrink a couple weeks ago and was going to review it, but I'm not a natural writer and the movie was very ho-hum...so never did.
Sorry, got kinda busy.
ReplyDeleteGreat points, both of you! Vicky, please don't be offended by my opinions. I respect you and your opinions. On this issue, we will just have to agree to disagree. Having said that, here is what Tim Wise has to say about all of this.
http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/racism-right-wing-rage-and-politics-white-nostalgia
Peace to both of you and I hope you both have a great weekend!
Tom
No worries, Tom and I apologize about getting a bit snarly. I do respect your opinions as well and don't expect you to agree with me on everything.
ReplyDeleteI read the Tim Wise article. He makes some excellent points even though I don't agree with him completely.
I can't read the protestors' minds any more than he can. While I think that some of them must mean that they want to go back to the days of blatant oppression of people of color, I don't think that they all mean this. I, myself, like to quote Jefferson quite a bit, but that does not mean that I think he was right to own slaves. On this point I think Wise is being a bit narrow-minded. He is calling those who directly told him that that is not what they meant liars, and I don't think that's fair.
I agree that if the protestors were anti-racist then they would dissociate themselves from those who are carrying the 'Go back to Kenya' signs. But I can't say that I would approach a guy with a Confederate Flag tattoo and a sign like that and chastise him. I suppose you could argue that being passive about it is in itself racist, but is it possible to not be racist and not fight against racism? I think so. There are many things that I think unjust in the world but I don't necessarily fight in the war against them. So, I'm not sure on this point whether I would call those people racist..just not sure.
I did some surfing yesterday to see some of the signs at the teabagger protests and found one site with a slide show of alot of the signs. Unfortunatley it is not clear whether these were at one particular tea party or a compilation. Regardless, I counted the ones that were blatantly racist ("Go Back to Kenya"..."You belong in a zoo"...etc.) and it was something like 7 out of 43 of the signs if you include some more ambiguous ones ("Your ears are big"...don't know if that's commenting on race or not).
To me this points out a sad fact that there are a lot of proud racists there and that is something that needs to be wiped out. But the majority of the signs still weren't racist.
What all that means I'm not sure, but I did pause to wonder if David Brooks didn't see any of these signs. He could have at least mentioned this aspect in his opinion even if he thinks most of the protest is not about race.
I wanted to thank you for the book reference by Wise too, Tom. I don't know if I'll read it, but I'll tuck it away in my mind and may read it, trying to be open-minded. I just think it is a bit elementary to point out white priveledge, perhaps a bit sanctimonious, but again, trying to keep an open mind. Maybe I'm being sanctimonious calling him sanctimonious, eh? :)
I hope to continue topics such as these; I think challenging my opinions and learning a thing or two to be important endeavors.
Very interesting discussion... I can see the merits/logic of both sides of the argument. I think we do all have our biases (however I don't think thhis makes us all racist). I do tend to go with Vicky on this one. Without rehashing all of this, I say, great points of view!
ReplyDelete'is it possible to not be racist and not fight against racism?'
ReplyDeleteYes, but only if your the correct race in the racists eye.
Otherwise the fight will come to you...
ReplyDeleteD'oh, 'your' should be 'you're'
Thanks for the excellent response, Vicky. You make some great points. And, I'm beginning to ease up on David Brooks. I've watched him over the years on PBS and have been frustrated, more than once, over his making crap up. But, I will agree, he's no Rush or Glen Beck! (of course, I'm not sure that's saying much!). He does make an excellent point that right wing radio hasn't had much impact on voters. Actually, makes me feel a bit better about things.
ReplyDeleteAs for racism, I don't know, maybe it's the word. We think of racists as those guys that wear sheets on their heads and hang people from trees. But, what do we call those who make decisions based on skin color? Biased? What about those that are just uncomfortable with a black president? Are they just misguided?
I don't know the answer, but I don't think we should easily dismiss the great possibility that many at these tea party events are motivated, to some extent, by the race of our president. Call it racism, call it bias, call it what you want, it's just something to take note of and know that we all can do a little better in this area.
Thanks, again, for your great response!
Thanks for posting Tim Wise, Tom. He's so articulate!
ReplyDeleteYou bet, Ajai! I met Tim a few years ago myself. Great guy. Really taught me a lot about racism in this country.
ReplyDelete"But, what do we call those who make decisions based on skin color? Biased? What about those that are just uncomfortable with a black president? Are they just misguided?"
ReplyDeleteNo, they are definitely racists.