Racism, Anti-Racism, and Faux Anti-Racism
The backlash against anti-racism, in this country, has been more powerful by an order of magnitude than anti-racism itself, and for decades. Full stop. —Freddie
In my career, I’ve written against racism and participated in what Freddie calls “the backlash against anti-racism,” though I don’t think that’s a fair way to put it. There are racists in this country, and there are folks who wrongly object to most every anti-racism effort. It is proper that both face strong criticism.
But the mainstream backlash in American race relations isn’t provoked by anti-racism and antagonism to it — the target here, what riles so many people, is faux-anti-racism, wherein poseurs exploit the powerful taboo against racism to accrue power. This is why Martin Luther King is revered and Al Sharpton loathed, why there is almost universal condemnation when a public figure is exposed saying the n-word, and simultaneous disgust at that story about the guy who got fired for using “niggardly” on the job.
If this phenomenon is partly driven by subconscious fear, it is largely fear of being falsely accused of racism. There ought to be powerful taboos against racism. I’m glad that polite society no longer tolerates people who use racial epithets, or actively discriminate against other races. A perhaps inevitable unintended consequence, however, is an incentive to wield the charge of racism as a weapon against those undeserving of it, and a phenomenally high price paid by those unfairly targeted. One sees the same thing in allegations of child molestation. The taboo against it is appropriately high. Those who molest children are rightly reviled. As a consequence, however, allegations of child molestation are sometimes falsely levied, whether due to malice or hysteria, and plenty of wholly innocent people — particularly men — think every so often, wondering if they’re being paranoid, “Heaven forbid I’m ever falsely accused of that.”
Let’s return to the subject of race, and the backlash against faux anti-racism. Perhaps I can help explain where this impulse originates by explaining how I came to it.
I grew up in Orange County, California, among plenty of Latinos, some Asian Americans, and very few black people. As a kid, I was largely oblivious to racial tension in the United States. My schooling taught about slavery as a historic atrocity, cast the Civil Rights movement as a redemptive moment for the United States, and never taught about or grappled with the present racial moment. My parents taught color-blindness, showed by example that people of all races ought to be treated the same, and would’ve probably gone ballistic if they ever saw even a hint of racial prejudice in my sister or I, though the idea of being racist was so foreign to us that we never would’ve been conscious of that at the time. Latino culture is everywhere in Southern California. Asian culture was what happened at the houses of close family friends. Black culture was portrayed on The Cosby Show. Everyone pretty much seemed alike to us.
On arriving at Pomona College, I was exposed to a whole new way of looking at race. This is partly due to being around more racial minorities who grew up experiencing race very differently than me. Almost without exception, I found that exposure to be enlightening. Though I don’t think that minorities should be used as teaching tools on college campuses, I certainly learned a lot by virtue of being around kids forced for their whole childhood to experience the world through the lens of race.
But I also experienced race differently due to official efforts undertaken by the college. The one I regard as the most dubious concerned the incoming freshmen, who were separated into “sponsor groups” that corresponded to floors in the dormitories. A sponsor group consisted of roughly 15 kids, and all orientation activities were arranged around these groups. The effect was that by the end of your first week on campus, you got to know these people even better than if you’d merely lived alongside them, and these relationships echoed across the years—many of the friends with whom I keep in touch from college either lived on my floor freshmen year, or were members of the sponsor group that I oversaw as a sophomore.
Here’s the thing: if you were a white kid at Pomona College, you spent that first week doing orientation activities with your sponsor group, but if you marked Asian on your application or housing materials, the Office of Campus Life automatically assigned you to both a sponsor group and a separate Asian American Mentor Program group. During orientation, you spent much of your time with that all Asian group. There were benefits to that setup. Some Asian kids found enormous support in that group. Others suffered for being segregated by race.
One could hardly count several Asians as friends at Pomona without getting very different takes on whether the approach was a good thing or a bad thing, but I regarded it as the latter, especially given the self-segregation that characterized the campus, and what I observed to be a healthier environment at UC Berkeley where one of my best friends went to school. Suffice it to say that overall, the AAMP was understandably controversial — and on more occasions than I can count, I saw students make good faith arguments that the program did more harm than good, and saw them called racist as a result. The chilling effect that resulted stifled debate on an appropriate topic of conversation. Seeing all that happen is how I first came to feel a backlash rising within me against what I judged to be faux anti-racism.
Other incidents heightened that impulse. The most powerful concerned a professor who sought to establish a new entity funded by the college to study diversity of one sort or another (I don’t mean to be dismissive of the purpose — it’s just been a long time). One day, she reported that her car was vandalized, that epithets against blacks and jews were written in spray paint on its roof, and that its windows were shattered. She railed about the hate crime. It underscored the need for exactly the kinds of things she advocated, she said. Then evidence emerged confirming that she faked the hate crime, vandalizing her own car. What I wrote at the time — and still believe — is that the worst thing about her behavior is how it must’ve made the blacks and Jews on campus feel imagining that a vandal was wandering around with hate in his heart for their kind.
This kind of thing was hardly unique to my campus. As a newspaper reporter, I saw an obviously corrupt politician react to criticism by claiming that he was being targeted for being a Latino — he actively tried to falsely label a political opponent racist on more than one occassion. Presumably you’ve seen reports of faked hate crimes on other campuses, and the harm that faux anti-racism can do is demonstrated most powerfully by the Duke Lacrosse players who nearly went to jail when a rogue prosecutor used faux anti-racism to launch a media campaign against them.
Let me be clear: I regard racism as a far greater problem in America than faux anti-racism. What I also think is that opposing both phenomenon is imperative. It isn’t controversial to say that murder is a far bigger problem than people falsely accused of murder — and that we should nevertheless be very attentive to innocent people being convicted. Nor is it controversial to say that child molestation is a bigger problem than people unfairly labeled sex offenders, and to support the backlash against foisting that label on people who are only guilty of streaking through their senior prom or dating a 16 year-old when they were 19 years old.
As long as we take racism seriously, and society imposes significant crimes on those thought to be racists, there is going to be a powerful incentive to play the race card when it is illegitimate to do so. The appropriate response isn’t to carefully determine whether racism or faux anti-racism is a bigger problem, and to focus exclusively on the winner — the best course is contempt for racists and faux anti-racism frauds. False accusations of racism are poisonous. They stoke racial resentments, render important political conversations impossible to conduct, lead people to believe that more hate is directed against them than is in fact the case, and wrongly disparage innocent people with one of society’s most reviled labels. It is appropriate to push back against it.
Before I conclude, I’d also ask Freddie to consider that Rush Limbaugh, during his comments about the white kid beat up on the school bus, is engaging in something that is part faux anti-racism — and to re-iterate that, quite distinct from those who object to faux anti-racism, there are folks who object to mere anti-racism, folks who are wrong to do so.
Man, I thought you were a newspaper writer. This prose is incredibly turgid, vague, and lifeless. Get a better game in the prosody department, and I’m not saying that because I’ve been critical of you as a man. This was really bad writing. See Steve Sailer’s latest on country music at Taki’s for something lively.
“I regard racism as a far greater problem in America than faux anti-racism. “
You don’t mean this, because it’s silly. I was there in in the 60’s marching for civil rights when it was still dangerous. I’ve seen true, unadulterated racism and hatred directed at blacks (and me, hatred, that is) on the south side of Milwaukee. I’ve seen the KKK when it still had some strength march and threaten us.
I’ve seen the police up close turn a blind eye (but also save our lives when a few hundred of us marched and were surrounded by thousands of angry whites tossing bricks, bottles, you name it, rarin’ to go at us) and act viciously towards blacks.
I was in a house, a headquarters of the NAACP Youth Council, when the police set it on fire; escaping out the back.
White racism is the least of America’s problem’s currently, and if you don’t know that, you’re a fool. And if you don’t know the level of racism that’s endemic in minority neighborhoods now, you’re a bigger fool.
But race is everything now for blacks, Hispanics; and Asians are picking up the cudgel like good, little hustlers gaming the spoils system.
You need to get out more.
— johnmark7 · Sep 17, 08:20 AM · #
There is an easy way to quantify this issue.
How many anti-Nazi movies illustrating the evils of racism have you seen? Too many to count.
And how many anti-Communist movies illustrating the evils of Marxism have you seen? Probably zero, perhaps 1 if you count Red Dawn.
To the extent that there are movies with Communist villains, they feature as cutout bad guys. The ideology of Communism is not explored — and condemned — in anything like the same depth that Nazism is. When is the last time you saw a film which made your heart ache for the plight of a kulak about to be deported to Siberia?
Conor, for someone who writes about the importance of cultural rather than merely political approaches, I think you’ll appreciate that this asymmetry regarding portrayals of the evil of racism vs. communism is really the crux of the issue. 100 million bodies, yet we are only immunized against racism in public schools, only receive booster shots warning us against intolerance rather than against class warfare. Why?
I recommend this Reason article on the topic:
Hollywood’s Missing Movies
http://www.reason.com/news/show/27732.html
— horowitz · Sep 17, 09:44 AM · #
The progressives will now, likely, use the backlash to false charges of racism as something equal to racism — the absurdity of these tactics reveals how desperate the progressives have become as a result of widespread public disapproval of their agenda. The isssue of racism is a serious issue, and the racism still present among all races is a complex reality which has caused much suffering throughout human existence — yet, it’s important to isolate this present political ploy and condemn it for what it is, so that the disturbing reality of actual racism doesn’t give cover to cheap tricks which are obviously designed to silence opposition — what other reason is there for the current proliferation of charges?
I hope Freddie is just over-eager to defend his beliefs and is not part of the campaign to disingenuously smear those who have different beliefs. It’s sort of like in the middle of a debate whether jazz is technically and intellectually superior to classical and the jazz proponent, after being hammered in the debate (either due to the opponent’s debating skill or the evidence presented), desperately tries to win by accusing the classical proponent of racism — then when the classical proponent becomes angry at such an egregious, unfounded charge, the jazz proponent goes further by stating the angry defense is a sign the racist charge hit a nerve and is true — the debate takes an ugly turn based on a cheap, despicable trick.
— mike farmer · Sep 17, 10:52 AM · #
Johnmark7, if you define racism as something which is obviously in the past, of course there is no racism. However, if you decide to be reasonable and accept that racism can take forms other than pure Jim Crow, then your claim that “white racism is the least of America’s problems” is obviously false. African-American and Hispanic populations in the United States are, in general, still poorer and less educated than white populations. While obviously this cannot entirely be attributed to racism, it takes a major leap of faith to claim that racism has nothing to do it.
One area where conservatives might have some play in arguing that anti racism is more damaging than racism itself is community leaders abusing false anti-racism to buttress their own (harmful) political power. Obviously, I am talking about Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc. There might be something there— who knows? Nonetheless, even if this were true, it wouldn’t excuse Limbaugh’s idiocy. To claim otherwise is the worst kind of tu quoque.
Conor, I would also add that, from where I am standing, those who spend spend a disproportionate amount of their time condemning faux anti-racism are often straight up racist themselves —- to wit, Steve Sailer. It is by no means always true, but it is true often enough to weaken the objection to Freddie at the end of your post.
— salacious · Sep 17, 11:30 AM · #
“those who spend spend a disproportionate amount of their time condemning faux anti-racism are often straight up racist themselves”
See, I told you. Now, we will have “disproportionate” police establishing thresholds to determine racism. It’s all right to condemn faux anti-racism to the properly established extent, but beyond that — sorry, racist. So, condemn it quickly then shut-up, no matter how much the faux anti-racism expands.
— mike farmer · Sep 17, 11:58 AM · #
Mike, it’s a empirical, rather than causal, relationship. Protesting false anti-racism doesn’t make you racist. It does, however, have a good chance of inserting you into a conversation which tends to be dominated by racists. I don’t think it’s untoward to ask people in that situation to be especially careful about distinguishing their views from the views of racists who often advanced similar arguments. Conor does a good job of that here.
— salacious · Sep 17, 01:15 PM · #
Someone, please boost the fluoride dose in Horowitz’s drinking water. He’s getting wise. . .
— turnbuckle · Sep 17, 01:16 PM · #
I live in Chattanooga, and some of my best friends are racists.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Sep 17, 01:47 PM · #
“African-American and Hispanic populations in the United States are, in general, still poorer and less educated than white populations. While obviously this cannot entirely be attributed to racism, it takes a major leap of faith to claim that racism has nothing to do it.”
But not to say that racism is far from the most important cause.
The decimation of the black family over the last several decades, with skyrocketing rates of illegitimacy and single-parent households, correlating with reduced levels of education, higher rates of delinquency, and reduced income potential, seems to be a more pressing issue — particularly since it is worsening while white racism is presumably either declining or at least getting no worse.
The decimation of the black family does not seem to be an effect of racism: The black family was healthier in the 1950s and 1960s, when racism was presumably either more virulent or at least no worse. In the intervening decades, the plight of the black family has worsened dramatically, harming the prospects of generations of blacks far more, I think, than white racism.
— letterman · Sep 17, 02:01 PM · #
Let me just briefly respond to Mike Farmer – and any one else that can hardly manage a sentence without accusing ideological opponents of some manner of perfidy.
The faux-racists (eg: Jackson and Sharpton) do not define the progressive movement any more than those who refer to Obama as an “Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug” define conservatism.
(As an aside: If anyone should characterize the progressive attitude towards racism, it’s the President. He – with the possible exception of Gatesgate – has been very measured and even-handed ever since he hit the scene.)
I think Conor’s point – in a single sentence – is: When it comes to racism, there are idiots on both sides. I think once we acknowledge that, there’s little left to say (at least in a forum like TAS, where people tend to be thoughtful). So I think it’s unfair, unhelpful and uninformed to accuse one side of being more culpable than another in this debate. And that’s clearly what you’re trying to do.
— GC from Virginia · Sep 17, 02:20 PM · #
But it isn’t as if white racism had nothing to do with the difficulties confronting black communities. Just to pull an example out of the air, American drug policy has had an immensely destructive effect on inner-city black families. I don’t think it’s possible to argue that racism has nothing to do with the defects of these policies.
This isn’t, of course, to say that there aren’t other factors contributing to this problem. This type of causal analysis is always tricky and uncertain. Nonetheless, based on what we know of history, it isn’t unwarranted to say that white racism has been one of the major contributing factors.
— salacious · Sep 17, 02:25 PM · #
Salacious, would you say these people are racist?
http://www.bookerrising.net/
They sure are condemning faux anti-racism a lot.
— mike farmer · Sep 17, 02:27 PM · #
“I live in Chattanooga, and some of my best friends are racists.”
I don’t believe I would’ve shared that, Sarg.
— mike farmer · Sep 17, 02:29 PM · #
“But race is everything now for blacks, Hispanics; and Asians are picking up the cudgel like good, little hustlers gaming the spoils system.”
Really? What’s your evidence that “race is now everything for blacks”? I’m black. I don’t think race is everything for me or any of the other black people I know. Who else do you know that’s black that believe race is their defining issue at the moment?
This is the kind of sweeping, ill-informed statement that prevents discussions on race from ever happening. Why should I, as a black person, sit here and have you lecture me about what you think I believe? While you’re certainly free to make statements like the one above, I certainly don’t have to give any credence to them when it appears you’re not even operating in good faith.
— Mike P · Sep 17, 02:30 PM · #
Since I have nothing to do right now, I’m actually going to make a serious comment.
Mike P, surely you know that, in a comment about how you do not define yourself by race, it undermines your point when you write, “Why should I, as a black person, sit here and have you lecture me about what you think I believe?” Your race has nothing to do with whether you should accept someone lecturing you about what you think.
Farmer, true story! And who cares, really? In my experience “racist” is so broadly defined — wariness of the Other, greater comfort with familiars — that everybody is a racist. Blacks at Vanderbilt self-segregated by choice. So did Muslims and Jews. And the Cubans all hung out together. And the KAs were all white. And my Mexican aristocrat friend had racial contempt for mestizos.
And we all had a blast drinking and trying to get laid. Again, who cares?
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Sep 17, 02:55 PM · #
The operative question is, what are our anti-racism efforts capable of achieving? They are very good at winning a few scalps— we can ruin the careers of John Rocker and Michael Richards, for example. Unfortunately, neither does us any good. Instead, they merely ramp up the notion that engaging on race is a dangerous activity that we should avoid lest we be similarly ostracized.
Now I’m okay with someone who repeatedly shouted the N-word having a crimp put on his career as an entertainer, provided that there aren’t any legal or financial reprisals that violate his first amendment rights. (It would also be my preference for such a person to have an opportunity to do a little penance and regain his public stature, but that’s up to the people who would consume his entertainment.)
The problem is that exorcising of the John Rockers and Michael Richards of the world does nothing to materially help the people who are disadvantaged through racism.
And disadvantaged they are, because despite the constant insistence in this blog’s combox and others, black and Hispanic Americans continue to face systemic, material disadvantage because of their race. You can look at income, education level, health insurance status, rate of home ownership, poverty rate, homelessness rate, and on and on. Or consider how much less likely black people with identical qualifications are to get hired for the same jobs. And this is to say nothing of the casual, “two beer” racism that many of us encounter all the time, the blase and banal assumption of racial inferiority that, yes, many people still seem to hold.
Now I have said repeatedly that what this country’s racial dialogue needs to power down the strength of its accusations and let the usual method of fixing socially unacceptable behavior, social correction, run its course. A racial conversation that takes moments of racism as unfortunate and in need of correction but does not expel anyone from polite society for individual racist assertions is a more humane and effective one. I would like for us to be able to say, in polite terms and without bitterness or a spirit of exclusion, “that was a little racist.”
But any positive evolution of our racial dialogue has to acknowledge that, no, this is not a post-race America, that we haven’t stamped out racism, and that the notion that we have is the product of wishful thinking. The sheer fact that so many more white people think this is a post-race society than nonwhite should tell you something. Now I’m happy to debate the presence or absence of racism in any particular situation, but I want to be able to actually debate such a question on the merits without any suggestion that there was racial impropriety deigned political correctness, or an unfair attempt to use racism to leverage partisan politics.
Talk about racism has to be on the table, but people are so massively sensitive to even discussing the issue, and so convinced of the bad faith of anyone who alleges racism, that it largely isn’t.
— Freddie · Sep 17, 02:57 PM · #
Freddie, talk about racism is “largely” not on the table? I don’t know about Limbaugh, but that must be parody. Well-played, sir.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Sep 17, 03:02 PM · #
K V. S.: You’re right and I’ll admit that the comment I was responding to made me angry. I should have left that out of the discussion. Still, I don’t think the rest of what I said is unreasonable.
— Mike P · Sep 17, 03:04 PM · #
Any positive evolution of racial dialogue should also, oh, I don’t know, take into account evolution and the fact that we’re a species not perfectly designed for the society we’ve built. We’re never going to be totally post-racial; at best we’ll just be careful about who we express our racial opinions to.
The best we can do is draw some bright behavioral lines and complicate the matter by multiplying racial dimensions (black/white into black/asian/white/latino, etc). That, and interbreeding.
Mike P, I agree 100% with the rest of your comment.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Sep 17, 03:10 PM · #
I’m sorry Conor but when the established conservative response to accusations of racism is to assert that it’s as bad for a white man to be called “racist” as it is for a black man to be called “n*gger”, nobody can take conservative criticisms of “faux racism” seriously. It’s obvious that conservatives consider all racism to be “faux racism” – unless, of course, that we’re talking about racism against white people.
— Chet · Sep 17, 03:14 PM · #
Kristoffer V. Sargent,
I don’t know exactly what Freddie means to say, but I for one would draw a distinction between racism process discussions and racism policy discussions. There is plenty of discussion of racism when it becomes a newsworthy story — when it affects the process of politics. Hence the courage of this story, Skip Gates, Trent Lott back in the day, etc. However, you almost never get serious, widespread discussion of the damage racism does on an everyday basis. Partly this is a consequence of the medias’ general preference for process stories over policy stories, but it also reflects an unwillingness on the part of our political culture to deal with the effects of racism. I think this is what Freddie is going for when he talks about dialing down “gotcha” race politics.
— salacious · Sep 17, 03:32 PM · #
Freddie, talk about racism is “largely” not on the table? I don’t know about Limbaugh, but that must be parody. Well-played, sir.
Self-refuting comment; self-refuting combox.
Once again, we see that any accusation of racism whatsoever is immediately met with angry recrimination and the insistence that no racism took place.
— Freddie · Sep 17, 03:34 PM · #
Chet, I think that’s a bit unfair. Here’s the thing: anti-racism (for lack of a better term) is really about fairness, right? Be fair to all people, don’t prejudge them. Well, then, it seems understandable that in the context of such an effort, people (having absorbed and accepted that message) might get super duper pissy about being unfairly accused (prejudged?) of something*. This seems to be Mike Farmer’s angle on this (apologies if I’m wrong about that).
* – of course, it’s also likely that someone who has rejected that message might also throw a tantrum at being called a racist, because the best defense is a good offense and all.
Oh, and I call BS on johnmark7:
[i]White racism is the least of America’s problem’s currently, and if you don’t know that, you’re a fool. And if you don’t know the level of racism that’s endemic in minority neighborhoods now, you’re a bigger fool.
But race is everything now for blacks, Hispanics; and Asians are picking up the cudgel like good, little hustlers gaming the spoils system.[/i]
What a steaming pile. Remember, folks, the REAL racists are the blacks, Hispanics and Asians! I don’t necessarily think that racism (regardless of who’s hatin’ on who) is our “biggest problem” right now (things like the economy, the long term debt, the two ongoing wars, the “War on Terror” the “War” on drugs, healthcare reform… all of these could be argued), but damn.
It’s one thing to point out that there are racists of all skin colours and creeds, and that the key thing we must push back against is bigotry in any form. It’s another thing to assert that the real problem is racist blacks, hispanics, asians, (insert other minority here). That just doesn’t pass the sniff test.
— Rob in CT · Sep 17, 03:42 PM · #
Since I’m waiting on my trial to start, and since I’m pretty juiced on coffee at the moment, I’m going to keep on talking. Sorrys all around.
First point: Chet, I don’t think you appreciate how complicated persons and peoples are. I also don’t think you realize how closely your gross generalizations about conservatives track the cognitive processes responsible for gross generalizations about races. It’s actually kind of interesting to watch, in a sad we’re-only-human kind of way. Don’t worry, though: self-awareness will not follow this comment, and you will remain happy in absurdity.
To whomever, one of the problems we have to solve is how to deal with suspect behavioral norms within groups that are also distinguishable by race. Clearly, every citizen regardless of race has an interest in public norms of behavior. If one insular group evolves anti-social norms — e.g., impoliteness, loudness, crackerish buffoonery — or public behavioral norms repugnant to the majority (we are a democracy), how do we push back if this insular group is also defined by their race (sexuality, whatever) and de facto segregated accordingly? Can we?
Shimmy who? What does that have to do with my comment?
Salacious, let me think about that. I definitely think racism is out there and problematic in all kinds of subtle ways. I’m just not sure those ways are mensurable or solvable via policy design or dialogue. I also think there is something of a spotlight effect going on with many of the people who “experience” racism. Phenomenologically, hidden racism and imagined racism are indistinguishable. The problem is how to tell the difference, and when we can tell the difference, how to address the former.
I’m not optimistic. But then again, I’m a misanthrope and get to be contemptuous of everyone with impunity.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Sep 17, 03:46 PM · #
Conor and Freddie, those are both very thoughtful posts. Thanks.
That said, I’m confused by:
If I understand Conor correctly, and I’m not sure that I do, then:
IMHO, I think that Limbaugh is engaging in a combination of anti-racism and faux anti-racism as part of a larger campaign of anti-faux-anti-racism, which Freddie judges to be faux-anti-faux-anti-racism. (I am completely serious about that analysis, btw). Presumably, people who find Limbaugh despicable believe either that Limbaugh is a faux-anti-faux-anti-racist or just that he’s a racist.
— J Mann · Sep 17, 03:50 PM · #
“Tolerance” is the word typically used, I think.
If there’s one thing that can be said about modern conservativism it’s that it’s rejected the message of tolerance, diversity, and multiculturalism. You’ve precisely hit on why their objections to being called out for racism ring so hollow – they’re the party of racism!
— Chet · Sep 17, 03:51 PM · #
I don’t think you appreciate how simple issues can be. For instance: don’t be a fucking racist! Simple.
I, for one, applaud your efforts to help conservatives come to terms with their anti-social norms. Oh, wait, were you talking about somebody else?
— Chet · Sep 17, 03:55 PM · #
I was talking about cracker-ass crackers, of course, and loud adolescent girls talking on their cell phones, and kids allowed to run around in bookstores screaming, and that black dude who talked at the movie screen last Friday, and that redneck asshole who grabbed my girlfriend’s ass at the bar a month ago, and….
And you’re right, emoting is indeed simple. (And rewarding!)
Actually, I love you and your crazy ways, Chet. Sexually.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Sep 17, 04:05 PM · #
Chet, I usually agree with you but on this one I’m going to cry foul. I think you underestimate the importance movement conservatism attaches to their self perception as the “real” anti-racists. You can see this in their discussions of affirmative action, the importance of free enterprise and social mobility, family values, whatever. Now, this ideology is almost unbearably naïve about the conditions actually confronting minorities in the United States, and furthermore is often shot through with racist subtexts, but I don’t think you can claim that Republicans outright rejected “the message of tolerance, diversity, and multiculturalism.” (Well, maybe multiculturalism) Obviously, this claim excludes the non-trivial subset of the Republican Party which really is simply straight up racist.
It’s not often that I defend Republicans, but when critiquing your opponent it’s important to have a good understanding of just what you arguing against.
— salacious · Sep 17, 04:05 PM · #
“don’t be a fucking racist! Simple.”
Not really, no. Not if we’ve moved beyond worrying about overt, in-your-face racism. If we’re also addressing subtle, I-don’t-even-really-know-I’m-doing/saying/thinking something bigotted racism, however, it’s not always simple. It requires: some degree of introspection, some sense of history, some empathy, and (to get back to the word you apparently didn’t like), a strong belief in fairness (liberty and justice for all).
We evolved as hunter-gatherers. We still have tribal tendencies, even though we came up with the nation-state centuries ago, ‘cause a few centuries just ain’t that long a time. Those tendencies have to be fought, and to fight them you have to recognize they’re there, for one, and recognize why they’re bad, for another.
This is simple? No, I don’t think that it is. I think it’s complex, and difficult.
— Rob in CT · Sep 17, 04:13 PM · #
See, here’s the problem — the discussion expands to discuss racism in broader terms, when actually the main backlash is aimed at the progressives’ attempt to silence opposition by making claims of racism.
I don’t care who calls me a racist — I know I’m not, and I’ve never suffered “white guilt” because I don’t think collectively, but rather individually, and individually I don’t have a racist bone in me, it’s just never been an impulse.
But all this talk about racism diverts attention away from legitimate opposition to the progressive agenda. Obama is the only one on the progressive side, it seems, denying that race has anything to do with it — for that I give him credit. Obama understands that it’s mainly an economic issue, but I think he overlooks the opposition to the problem of a powerful state being a big part of the protest movement.
The progressives realize they are in trouble and crying racism is just a cannon in the war.
— mike farmer · Sep 17, 04:19 PM · #
Horowitz inveighs
“this asymmetry regarding portrayals of the evil of racism vs. communism is really the crux of the issue”
Wow, at this point its not just what year, decade, or century are you living in but what millennium?
While there are still a few nasty commies here and there the Cold war was won last century and the great red threat is dead. China is authoritarian but hardy communist anymore. Frankly, rampant and extremist Objectevism has been more of a problem for us lately.
Speaking from a middle class centrist position actual “class warfare” in this country has always been a two way street. Mostly now a days “class warfare” is one of those silly rhetorical devices right wing ideologues love to fall back on when they have nothing of substance to say. Due to the strength and prominence of the middle class it has simply never poisoned American society and marked our history like racism has.
Or perhaps you could point out where and when mobs ravaging commies where lynching rich people? I know I can point out where and when rich people enslaved Africans and did things that were only a step or two away to poor white people. But that’s beside the point.
Get a grip, there are no commies under your bed.
— AhYup · Sep 17, 04:27 PM · #
mike farmer,
This “protest movement” was nowhere to be seen when the previous president was busy centralizing enormous quantities of power in the executive branch. Pardon me for concluding that principled libertarianism isn’t quite the driving factor you make it out to be. I don’t think it’s entirely implausible to ask why this opposition to “big government” only shows up when that government is aimed at helping blacks folks.
— salacious · Sep 17, 04:29 PM · #
“when actually the main backlash is aimed at the progressives’ attempt to silence opposition by making claims of racism”
Oh nonsense. “Progressives” see racism right now for many reasons but chief among them is that it’s the simplest and easiest answer to over top and bizarre claims and behavior on the right. That’s not to say that it’s accurate but it makes more logical sense than the “Obama is Hitler/socialist” and there various reality challenged ravings of Glenn Beck and Limbaugh.
When we see something other than hysterical ranting on the right perhaps you’ll have a point. In the meantime there is no polite way to characterize the antics of the “opposition” and racist is probably the one that gives them the most credit for sanity anyhow.
— AhYup · Sep 17, 04:36 PM · #
“Pardon me for concluding that principled libertarianism isn’t quite the driving factor you make it out to be.”
This is another diversion — I never made any such claim. I’m talking about the present progressive ploy to silence opposition. But for what’s it’s worth, many people, including libertarians, protested Bush, including black protesters — were they racist? It wasn’t until the end of Bush’s term that he started the bailouts and if he had continued, then tried to institute government run healthcare reform, then cap and trade, he would have had widespread protest that was more non-political than partisan — the independents would’ve eaten him alive.
— mike farmer · Sep 17, 05:28 PM · #
AhYup, I think you’ve fallen for the narrative that the opposition is from the “crazy right”, organized by rightwing groups and the Republican Party. I am not a rightwing apologist, so your response, to me, misses the mark. The opposition is widespread and not necessarily “right” — it’s a diverse (even if not racially diverse, although some minorities are protesting) opposition that includes a lot of older people who are not that partisan or politically active — it’s mainly a non-monolithic cross-section of the “silent majority” who are fed up with both left and right, and they are protesting the over-reach.
— mike farmer · Sep 17, 05:45 PM · #
I was in AAMP, and I don’t remember spending any time at all with AAMP instead of my sponsor group during orientation. They had plenty of events, but they were all completely voluntary, and I don’t remember anyone else in my sponsor group missing sponsor group activities for AAMP events. Granted, I wasn’t particularly involved in the program, but I don’t think it stifles interaction between groups any more than the sponsor group program itself did.
The funny contrast between your experience and mine is that I grew up within an hour’s drive of you, and also went to a Catholic high school, and when I got to Pomona I remember thinking it was funny that they talked so much about how diverse it was, when the students seemed, to me, to be noticeably less racially diverse than my high school.
I think the problem with comparing racism to child molestation is that it neglects the entire between-ground, where I believe most Americans fall, of truly abhorring racism while also harboring their own racial prejudices, whether unconscious or not (and I count myself in this group). Accusations of racism should not be a call to excommunicate someone, but rather a cry for them to think about the issue a little deeper. To you it seems like a clearly black-and-white issue – in your family, no hint of racism was tolerated. In contrast, my parents acknowledged that some good and decent people, even relatives or family friends, could be blatantly racist. Their racism was sometimes fiercely criticized, but the individual was still accepted. It was really not the same as if they were child molesters.
— Sunny · Sep 17, 05:58 PM · #
“This is another diversion — I never made any such claim. “
meet
“but I think he overlooks the opposition to the problem of a powerful state being a big part of the protest movement.”
— salacious · Sep 17, 06:01 PM · #
Mike Farmer,
…just as reform advocates are non-monolithic and culturally diverse.
You’re attempts to portray the “progressives” in this debate as a uni-dimensional force engaging in some conspiracy to “silence the opposition” really undermine your efforts to play non-partisan.
I would consider myself a progressive. But I can’t stand Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. I think Carter was an idiot on NBC the other night. I think Obama made a mistake when he called out the Cambridge Police Department without all the facts.
I also think that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are unabashed race-baiters, if not outright racists. I think quite a few of the signs I saw from the Tea Party rally (and previous rallies) were offensive and undeniably racist.
What I don’t believe is that this behavior defines the opposition. You shouldn’t let the fringe elements define your opposition either.
— GC from Virginia · Sep 17, 06:06 PM · #
“You’re attempts to portray the “progressives” in this debate as a uni-dimensional force engaging in some conspiracy to “silence the opposition” really undermine your efforts to play non-partisan.”
I’m talking about the progressives who are actually using the ploy, not all progressives, just as I have stated there are some in the opposition who are racists. The use of racism lately by many progressives is obviously a ploy — you’d have to be purposefully ignorant to deny it.
— mike farmer · Sep 17, 06:33 PM · #
In addition — The influential progressives all seem to be saying the say thing is what I meant. You are right that not all progressives are making this claim — but, then, I don’t hear any influential progressives, except Obama, refuting the racism charges.
— mike farmer · Sep 17, 06:36 PM · #
One more thing and I will shut up — regardless of what any of us think here, what is coming out in the media is perceived as progressives calling all the oppostion racists — that’s the perception — that’s basically what Carter and others said — and I don’t think it’s a perception that will help the progressives. If I was a leading progressive, I would be doing everything I could to change that perception before public opinion is turned completely against the cause.
— mike farmer · Sep 17, 06:41 PM · #
But we haven’t moved beyond worrying about overt racism. These past two days, while Conor and the conservatives have fretted about when it’s fair to identify racism, the black progessive community has been reeling from the vicious beating of a black woman in front of her child by a white racist. Of course, comment from conservatives about this barbaric attack is nowhere to be found.
A Google search for conor friedersdorf AND “oscar grant” site:theamericanscene.com returns zero documents, suggesting that Conor has yet to weigh in on the most troubling act of police violence against a minority in recent memory. Curious. Similarly, conor friedersdorf AND “james von brunn” site:theamericanscene.com returns only a single link to a comment thread where conservatives attempt to defend themselves from associations with that white supremacist.
If there’s anything like the denunciations of racism and exploration of the problems surrounding it that happens on liberal/progressive blogs here at the American Scene, or by Conor, it’s impossible to find. Hence the conclusion that conservatives are far more concerned about deflecting accusations of racism than in actually fighting racism.
— Chet · Sep 17, 06:48 PM · #
“But for what’s it’s worth, many people, including libertarians, protested Bush, including black protesters — were they racist? It wasn’t until the end of Bush’s term that he started the bailouts”
I don’t recall anti-Bush protestors saying things or holding signs that were arguably racist. Nasty? Sure. Dumb? Sure. Not the same. There is some racism being displayed here, by the fringe (which is a lot larger than I think any of us would like).
But from the early stages Bush did things like cut taxes w/o cutting spending and starting an unnecessary war that has proven to be terribly expensive. So well before the bailouts or Medicare Part D, there was ample reason to get fired up about the finances of the federal government, but I don’t recall hearing much noise on that score (I was concerned, and I believe that you were concerned. I believe that folks like the Concord Coalition were concerned). Unfortunately, not much noise was made by reasonable people. Heck, I couldn’t see myself at an Iraq war protest b/c I had no intention of being identified with some of the fringier elements at such events. So what did I do? Nothing, really. I bitched online. Next time some politician wants to start a stupid war of choice, I’ll have to figure out a way to voice my opposition w/o lining up with the nutters (though it should be noted that some so-called nutty folks were right back in 2002-2003 about Iraq).
— Rob in CT · Sep 17, 08:14 PM · #
I read discussions like this and what I’m left with is the following: White people should not talk about racism. We really don’t get it at all.
— Steven Donegal · Sep 17, 09:00 PM · #
Mike P,
You’re right. I should have said for the vast majority of blacks and latinos, its all about race.
Lovely how the first thing you do is to pull out your race card.
Salacious,
I have nothing to say to a racist such as yourself and your obviously racial animus toward Steve Sailer. Really pathetic self-righteousness. It’s such a bore.
Rob,
Learn to read. The biggest racism problem is among the minorities today. It’s not coming from whites. Spend some time in minority homes, listen to the chatter while the folks watch TV, listen to what they tell their kids about all the other kinds of people who aren’t them. There is an inculcation of racism in the minority underclass that would shock the many if they ever knew of it and how deep and endemic it is. But that’s what losers do, find others to hate.
Even so, plenty leaks out in Rap, Hip Hop, black comedians, BET, and in all the schools in the country. There isn’t a responsible parent in the country who’d let his white child attend a high school or junior high school where he or she was the extreme minority to a large black majority.
Now reverse the situation. No rational, black parent has anything to fear in sending his kid to a mostly white school.
Go ahead and live in the real world. Give it a shot.
— johnmark7 · Sep 17, 09:15 PM · #
Rob in CT — I can’t say much about Bush – I opposed him — I’m a non-interventionist libertarian. I don’t think the Republicans or the Democrats have done anything to limit government and allow capitalism to work — you see, I’m a damn radical of a weird sort.
— mike farmer · Sep 17, 09:51 PM · #
To deny that we make unconscious categorizations and judgements based on the way someone looks is, I think, to deny our humanity. This is not to say that we cannot consciously overcome those impulses, at least after the fact. More to the point, to deny that some people don’t use racism as leverage to accrue power is also silly. The issue that we need to concentrate on is the use and abuse of power. Race is a lens through which that is focused, mostly. The people who honestly think black people are inferior types of humans are few and far between in the country, but the number of those who are willing to use race as a pretext to take power from some and give it to others (or themselves) I think is still pretty large. And I would say those who specifically are OK with using race as a pretext to deny power to blacks are, by and large, Republicans and the reverse are probably Democrats. But that may be besides the point…
Taken in this context I think it’s safe to say race plays a PART in how President Obama is treated/talked about/refered to/etc. How could it not? I would even say that the majority of birthers/crazies are this type of racist; uneasy with a black man as president not because he is black, but because they are uneasy and they use race/racism (and all associated dog-whistles, baggage, symbols, associations, etc) as a way to divide things up easily into us vs them, focus their attempts to get get power back, motivate their side, denigrate the other side, etc. And while they might not harbor a single harsh thought towards black people on an individual basis, it’s still racism. However, that it’s racism is also besides the point. It’s simply people fighting over power and if they didn’t use racism they would find something else use. To focus on their racism is to miss the actual problem.
— bakum · Sep 17, 09:58 PM · #
Does anybody think this is true? Anybody? Is there anybody out there for whom this is in any way similar to their own experience? Really? When minority students show up at predominantly-white schools or clubs or other institutions, their acceptance is immediate and unconditional? Seriously?
The things you say, John, are just so completely wrong – so completely different than how reality truly is – that I’m blown away that you think you’re the one who’s “living in the real world.” Truly amazing.
— Chet · Sep 17, 10:01 PM · #
Bakum is right.
As we can see from Johnmark7’s remarks……it isn’t just anti-black racism.
It is anti-hispanic and anti-asian sentiment too.
Hey Johnmark7……the timer is running….. tick tick tick.
— matoko_chan · Sep 17, 10:02 PM · #
I’m not sure how “few and far between” they could possibly be when johnmark7 is up there doing it now, and Steve Sailer regularly floats in here to tell us about all those brave scientists so proudly and courageously fighting against a world that doesn’t want to hear how much better white people are at everything.
— Chet · Sep 17, 10:05 PM · #
Chet, no matter what Johnmark7 or whomever might say in these comments, my experience is that, by and large, most people care about power. Race is a distraction. My $0.02.
— bakum · Sep 17, 10:29 PM · #
I would also add that Johnmark7 is right about one thing: non-whites are racists, too, and in just the same way. At least the ones that I know are.
— bakum · Sep 17, 10:37 PM · #
Sure, but who cares? Minority racism towards whites hasn’t lead to systematic oppression. It’s a non-problem, but it’s the only kind of racism conservatives are concerned about.
— Chet · Sep 17, 11:26 PM · #
Allow me to apologize on behalf of the entire line of johnmark automatons. While a promising champion of civil rights in early trials, the johnmark7 soon suffered a series of malfunctions that rendered it paranoid, hostile and generally prone to a variety of dissociative disorders. It’s given to delusions, believing itself to have once cursed an armed police officer at WATTS and to have suffered a hail of bricks in a Milwaukee race riot. Once, it even claimed to have fought at Harper’s Ferry. In fact, all of this is impossible: the johnmark7 was not animated until 1975.
All of us at Cinco Enterprises want to assure you that the johnmark7 is an aberration. The rest of the line has engaged in unparalleled service raising awareness about Cesar Chavez, setting up voter registration drives in challenged neighborhoods and helping to rebuild NAACP offices destroyed by arson.
With the exception of the johnmark7, we are committed to continued excellence. If you find yourself confronted by a johnmark7, we encourage you to ignore it if possible and hope it goes away.
Sincerely,
— johnmark12 · Sep 18, 12:07 AM · #
Wait a minute. None of the commenters seems to’ve yet made a point which seems essential to me, which is that the quote Friedersdorf opened with is thoroughly, obviously wrong (and thus, in classic Internet fashion, defended with “Full stop.”) I mean, you have to be many kinds of nuts to argue that anti-anti-racism has been more powerful than not “for decades.” Things have gotten better; palpably so in my (non-white) lifetime. There are places I got the crap beaten out of me for going, that anyone can go to now. Of course that’s not to say everything’s great or where it should be. But it requires remarkable stupid to say that they’re not substantially better than in, say, 1979.
— Sanjay · Sep 18, 03:52 AM · #
This is massively over-thought. You either see racism in certain statements or incidents or you don’t. Some people get that wrong; that doesn’t constitute a mass social problem of faux-anti-racism that deserves mention alongside the greatest social schism in our national life. Also, while everyone’s formative experiences on race are worth noting, the point of taking such note is to recognize the way in which individual experience cuts the lens through which we perceive social reality, but larger social realities do exist, and we need to adjust our vision to account for our particular stigmatism, not embrace and rely on our singular experiences as rightful explanations for our under-considered views.
— Mike · Sep 18, 11:43 AM · #
johnmark12 – awesome. Well done.
— Rob in CT · Sep 18, 05:59 PM · #