The Problem Isn't "Race," It's Racism
The NYT's rehash of Democrats' "southern problem" is a pretty remarkable accomplishment. 1,300 words on the first African-American nominee's ability to compete in the historic site of slavery and Jim Crow without the words "racism" or "prejudice" or any other phrase that put the trends both current and historic in proper context.
Instead, the "paper of record" chose to whitewash history with polite euphemisms. On why white Southerners left the Democratic Party:
But voters' allegiance was rocked in the 1960s by the Democrats' leadership in passing civil rights legislation, and whites began to move to what Republicans asserted was their more natural ideological home. [emphasis added]Yes, and that ideology was, um, white supremacy.
And this is good, apparently there could be a "Republican" backlash if Obama registers too many "new voters":
Some Democrats say the Obama registration drive could have unintended consequences, spurring a higher turnout among whites planning to vote Republican. But Charles Bullock, a political scientist at the University of Georgia, said he considered that unlikely.Again, those "traditional racial attitudes" are racist attitudes. Say it with me New York Times: r-a-c-i-s-m."Older whites who are most likely to have traditional racial attitudes are probably already registered and may have records of consistent participation," Dr. Bullock said.
As Mr. Mabus put it, "I'm sure some won't vote for him because he's African-American, but I'm pretty sure those people wouldn't vote for any Democrat."[emphasis added]
The problem is not that Barack Obama is an African-American. And it's not "traditional racial attitudes," and it's not "Republican backlash," and it's not that the GOP is a "more natural ideological home" for Southerners.
The problem is that many older voters (not all, of course) in the South are racist. They are the problem. So rather than pointing at Barack Obama, or Northern Democrats, or the "issue of race," let's point at racism and racists.
Thanks for stating the obvious Andrew! Maybe someone over at the Times will actually get a clue as a result, but I'll not be holding my breath on that.
It would be nice if the NYT and the other corporate media would simply acknowledge that the Republican Party is the party of racism in the US and has been ever since the Democratic Party abandoned segregation in the 60's. But then we wouldn't be able to be "nuetral" if we identified one of the parties in our country as having ridden to power and maintained political power for the better part of the past 40 years as a result of it's unholy alliance with racism.
June 30, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think IDing the GOP as the "party of racism" would be fine for the opinion pages, but is an interpretation of facts not a simple statement of them. (I'd agree with that IDing, depending on how nuanced the argument and whether or not you allow for the fact that there are many good, non-racist people in the Party who have simply benefited from racism, as well as some non-racists who have used it and some out and out racists).
BUT, identifying racism would be simple reporting and would only require the analytical jump that acknowledges that there is something wrong with the belief that one race is better than another inherently. I think the NYTs probably believes this and it's not at all clear to me why they wouldn't just say it.
June 30, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I accept your argument but have to point out that genuinely "good" people would refuse to be associated with a party that is benefitted by racism or they would fight to change it. I have seen no evidence of any effort in the Republican Party---ever---to fight the racism from which they have benefitted and without which they would not have elected Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II not to mention almost all of the Republican memebers of the the Congress from the south since 1966.
June 30, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stephen Clobert had a segment about the relucatance to use the word 'racism' last week. It is simply cowardice on the part of journalists. We should be used to their craven attitude by now.
June 30, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
For some history on traditional racial attitudes in white America, from Minnesota to Alabama, see the book Without Sanctuary a book of essays and images from picture postcards collected by the author. The postcards were bought by white Americans and sent to friends and relatives showing the dead, burned and mutilated corpses of lynching victims. amazon com book-link
Lynching continued until at least the 1930's, the victims being not all blacks but mostly blacks, some Jews and whites too, and the 'right' to lynch was prominent in southern politics up to the 1948 elections.
Some of the images from the book (very graphic) can be found if you search for 'without sanctuary' in Google images.
June 30, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
For most of my life the Republican Party, for voters, has been about racism, but for the party "leaders" it has been about opportunities for amassing more wealth. The "leaders" lead the voters around with a rope attached to their noses, making them believe that they, the "leaders", share their, the voters, racist views. Tax cuts have been a big attraction too, but most opposition to taxes is based on the belief that taxes just allow "them" to lay around producing more babies and committing more crimes.
You really have to check your morals at the door if you belong to the Republican party.
June 30, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew, Nice of you to paint a whole section of the country with your broad brush of smear. Is there racism there? Sure. Is it any different than the racism of NYC or Chicago or LA? No. Is it a coincidence that no Democrat has won the south as a region for generation? Those losses had nothing to do with racism and much to do with differences in views. Man, nothing like flushing a whole generation of Americans down the stink hole just because you "believe" it to be true.
You can blame Democratic problems in the South on racism and be partly right. But the real answer is far deeper than just that.
June 30, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would recommend you read Rick Perlstein's Nixonland. And I didn't "paint a whole section of the country with your broad brush of smear." I said "many older voters (not all, of course) in the South are racist." Do you dispute this?
June 30, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read it in context with the rest of your comments. Sounded pretty tongue in cheek to me. Still it has little or nothing to do with why Democrats do not succeed in the South. Are you saying otherwise? If you are then you are suggesting MOST if not all Whites in the south are racist. Mr. Nixon won in 1968 because of the split in the party created by George Wallace not because he miraculously came upon a southern strategy that worked.
Again, are you saying the racism of NYC or Chicago or LA is any differnt than racism in the south? Cabrini isn't in Atlanta.
June 30, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you recall what George Wallace's ran on and against in 1968? He was, at that time, the personification of racist southern sentiment. He later changed, but had those who voted for him not cast their ballot for Wallace they most certainly would not have cast it for Humphrey.
That there is a direct correlation between the rise of the Republican Party in the south since the mid-1960's and racism is indisputable. And it is racism that has kept the Republican Party in power in the south since then.
June 30, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both of us are just pissing in the wind cause we can't know but if Wallace sits it out Humphrey wins. Anyway we can't know that.
My real point is that racism in the south is no different from racism in the nort east west or on mars. Racism is racism. Go talk to Axelrod about his run with Harold Washington in Chicago if you want to talk racism.
Someone below mentions private schools in the south. In the north Whites move to the burbs in gated communities and build their schools with local tax money that are far superior to any other schools in the region. And if you suggest that they should pool the tax money and give it equally to all school districts then you are voted out of office. Now, that folks, is racism.
Call it what you will. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..its a duck.
June 30, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of the reasons for Nixon's victory the point remains that white racism is what has propelled the Republican rise to power since the 1960's in the south.
And I'm sorry, but no, racism isn't the same everywhere and the south has a unique historical relationship with racism as we all know. The political culture of the south is and always has been uniquely dominated and influenced by white racism as it continues to be to this day. As the older people die off this will lessen, but it will still be present and in a way unique to the south.
Racism surely exists elsewhere, but it has never been the central focus of political dominance outside the south as it has been in the south.
June 30, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
White flight in the north or riots against busing in Boston aren't evidence of Dominance of racism in those areas? Do the kids in and around the Cabrini area get to go to school with the kids in Libertyville? I think not.
June 30, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The main difference as far as racism goes from place to place is its prevelence and openness. In the south it is more prevelent and open than it is in other areas of the nation. There are areas in other states that are just as racist as the south. The racist in OH and PA helped Clinton to win those primaries.
June 30, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. And echoing some of Obamawon's sentiments, the reason for those regional differences have less to do with how the inherent racist attitudes vary from region to region and more to do with how relevant those racist attitudes are. If the population around you is 95% white, then racist attitudes aren't as relevant (or obvious) as when the population around you is only 70% white.
I'd argue that many racists in the North don't even know how racist they are because they haven't been in situations where it was obvious. I still remember when someone I knew (and loved) who lived in rustic OH her whole life made a statement about a black woman she ran into in a rest stop on her way to visit us in GA: "She was really nice for a black woman." My jaw dropped to the floor. She had no idea why what she said was wrong, either.
June 30, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the Delta they still say things like "call a spade a spade" and know that it is a racist statement. They are up front about their racism.
Here in Memphis I have heard people using 'Democrat' as a code word for black when in a situation where they cannot be openly racist. Being a white Democrat it took a few confusing conversations before I figured out what the racist bastards were saying.
June 30, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Southern racism is very different from that of other regional racism. Due to the Civil War and later Jim Crow years, southern racism is generally far more overt, often with deliberate attempts to justify if not actually support it from the political structure. If anything, you can see a southern racist coming.
OTOH, northern/western racism is far more subtle and therefore more pernicious. Generally it is finely woven into the margins of policy and social norms. Patronage jobs and housing redlining are exammples of sub rosa racism. Sometimes the only way you can tell a northern racist is to try to marry his daughter.
June 30, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or go to his church and live in his neighborhood and go to his school. But, I don't agree with your premise at all. The patronage woven into they politics of Chicago or Boston is more in your face racism than anything the south could come up with. In both cities you are better off having an Irish last name when making that application.
June 30, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chicago and Boston are exceptions from the rest of the North because they have a higher concentration of blacks. Most smaller towns in the North have a very small percentage of blacks, so racist attitudes are much harder to detect (a la Schmedley).
June 30, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry but you are just plain mistaken. There is nothing more in your face than the racism in the MS delta. Been there, seen the movie.
June 30, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe his point wasn't that there isn't overt racism in MS, but that there is overt racism in Chicago and Boston.
June 30, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think its more to your point Ben. Its all racism no matter how you cut it. It just is silly to point at the south when it isn't just a southern problem. Not to point fingers at the latte drinkers but when was the last time that an upper income community in any state north of the Ohio river allowed mixed housing within its borders. i.e. lower income houses and apartment buildings within the community. I can save you looking it up . Zero. The white north has walled itself off from other cultures till they have "paid" the price of admission. That is as a your face type of racism that anyone could ever experience.
June 30, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that it is more prevelent down here. I have lived all over this nation and let me tell you the racist/racialy sensitive ratio is higher down here.
June 30, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm handing the south to the republicans for the next 40 years" Lyndon Johnson upon signing the Voting Rights act in 1964
June 30, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does that mean that now that it's been 44 years later, we can finally take it back?
June 30, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn PC Yankees...I grew up in Louisiana during the 1960's. In the small town outside BR, desegregation of the public schools prompted white flight to the Catholic school and the creation of False River Academy, suitably endowed so that all but the poorest whites could afford to attend in a racially pure environment.
Two years ago my father died and so I went back home with him. I suggested to my brother that we use the services of the black funeral home. His response "We do want people to come"
They're all Republicans now and won't vote for Barack but wouldn't vote for any Demo nominee. The core of racism transcends race in the Deep South
False River Academy is still there, thriving and lily white
June 30, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does the map at the top right represent?
It is not the Confederate States since Virginia is lopped off and Arkansas is included. Also, Florida was a confederate state but your map seems to exclude it. See Wikipedia map.
Now compare either of those maps to this one of where most African Americans live.
Cognitive dissonance? If the old South is so racist, why do so many African Americans continue to live here? And why are so many who profess great concern about the racism in the South so willing to abandon this population to the tender mercies of the GOP's Southern Strategy. (See WhistlingPast Dixie and Conscience of a Liberal).
I am thoroughly disgusted with the Democratic Party. There is not a single Democrat on the ballot for any local office here. Only in the last couple of hours before qualifying for the primaries ended did two Democrats step up for any State office. If Obama was not expected to have very long coattails, I doubt there would be have been any. How do Democrats ever expect to win at the national office level if they do not cultivate candidates at the local and state levels?
The Democratic Party's abandonment of the South that began in earnest with the "smart-ass white boys*" who ran Mondale's campaign is as much or more responsible for the predicament they find themselves in now as the Southern Strategy.
Thank God for Howard Dean and Barack Obama who are willing to at least put up a fight to recapture the South. It is long past time to abandon a losing strategy.
*Andrew Young's description of the campaign managers at the time for which he was forced to apologize for the unpcness of it.
June 30, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is Bill Shipp, a political reporter in Georgia for the past 40-50 years, noting how unprepared Democrats here are to meet opportunity.
Key graf from Donkeys Fizzle Again
June 30, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP "Southern Strategy" has been and will continue to be about racism. But Saint Raygun sanctified it so it's OK now and not polite to mention in the news. After all, IOKIYAR to be racist.
June 30, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, how come we can post comments on this post, where we get to pick on the white trash (as usual), but not on Steven Greenhouse's post that what working class voters want is a "fair deal"?
Sigh. It's just like dealing with the Democratic Party.
June 30, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That post went up momentarily accidentally. No grand conspiracy to hold the white man down.
June 30, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So, how come we can post comments on this post, where we get to pick on the white trash (as usual), but not on Steven Greenhouse's post that what working class voters want is a "fair deal"?
Sigh. It's just like dealing with the Democratic Party."
...Oh, and now it's gone completely. See-- just like the Democratic Party. There's your problem.
June 30, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"That post went up momentarily accidentally. No grand conspiracy to hold the white man down."
Not the "white man"-- I don't see anyone holding you down. The "working class."
June 30, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't a conspiracy to hold them down either.
June 30, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then I'm confused. Who exactly was the conspiracy trying to hold down? ;)
June 30, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm handing the south to the republicans for the next 40 years" Lyndon Johnson upon signing the Voting Rights act in 1964
Posted by thequis
June 30, 2008 12:36 PM
turns out he misunderestimated...gonna be more like 100 years...
June 30, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody calls what happened to Amadou Diallou or Sean Bell a 'lynching' cuz it's the cops who do it...
June 30, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow...
I guess for some of us, it will always be the age of lynchings and oppression. And nightriders still prowl the backcountry.
Only it isn't and they don't. Let's move along with the times, folks, lest we become as remote and irrelevant as finger-daubed cave paintings.
June 30, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to know that Northern liberals, Geraldine Ferrero style, claim the moral high ground.
Are there racists in the South? Yes.
Does that make the south all about racism? No.
Stereotyping Southerns this way drives them nuts and for good reason, Andrew.
Back off.
June 30, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
um, what are you talking about? he said many older voters in the south will not vote for obama because he is black, and that this phenomenon is racism.
how is this wrong?
June 30, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because many older (and younger) voters in the north also will not vote for Obama because he is black.
June 30, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
To expand on that, the three states that come to my mind when I think of voters who pretty much admitted that they didn't vote for Obama because he was black were WV, OH, and PA. None of these are part of the South.
June 30, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
fair enough. but he never said that the north was free of racism. he just said that there were many, older, racist voters in the south. the NYT article never mentioned the phenomenon of northern racism---only southern.
you are right---there are northerns who won't vote for a black guy. but the NYT article wasn't about them---it was about the south. when the NYT writes an article about northern racism there will be plenty to say about that as well.
people need to calm down. instead of taking every opportunity to tout your outrage hard-on, take a step back and dial down the tension. it's worth doing.
June 30, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm quite calm, but I think it needs to be pointed out that many in the South are quite upset by the characterization that it's the home of racism. It's a stereotype that one should avoid promulgating. I'm not upset with Andrew, but I think he would've done well to make the important additional point that racism is a factor in regions other than the South.
June 30, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is an example of just finding something to complain about. It's a blog post, not a book. I don't need to cover every other iteration of racism in the world.
To make you happy:
Racism exists in many forms and many locations throughout the United States. Sometimes it's just the every day stereotypes that exist in our culture that we have to struggle through, sometimes it's the assumption in a comment thread than a pseudonymous writer is white (and male), sometimes it's something more serious and hateful. In American history on a social-political level, there is also huge variation. There have been race riots and divisions in cities, suburbs and the county side. East, west, north and south.
But, there is a particular and unique experience of Southern institutionalized white supremacy that started with slavery and carried on through Jim Crow and post-Civil War racial backlash. Acting as if "everyone is racist" and that unique experience doesn't exist is ahistorical and will take away the tools we need to deal with our current circumstances.
So yes, race is absolutely a factor in other places. But the NYTs piece I'm writing about is about the South, and talking about a black Democrat in the the South without talking about racism is just ridiculous, whitewashed, cowardly journalism.
June 30, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I definitely agree with your main point, but I rarely spend much time discussing where I agree with people.
June 30, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Southern history is also unique, with its experience of defeat, occupation and the deprivations of Reconstruction. As long as we are so obsessed with relentlessly poring over what we now adjudge an abhorrent past, we should broaden the framework to consider all factors of an intricate, complicated saga. Dropping everthing into a file marked "Racism" - where delineations between good and evil are so clearly and simplistically marked - is no longer useful; much of the time such shortsightedness serves only our sanctimony, anyway.
June 30, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think the NYT should be looking at NYC before they go looking for racists in the south. But, of course, most NY'ers are geniuses about the south because they go to Miami every year.
June 30, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Racism in Boston is NOTHING like Racism in the South.
I have lived in both. I have had the treatment of both.
For the MOST part Boston in itself isnt very racist. In the 80's and early 90's you would be more likely to find it in South Boston where it was predominately white, but for the most part(not saying all) you didnt see or hear much of it by the time 95/96 rolled around.
When it comes to the out skirts of Massachusetts, in the SUBURBS, yeah you can will find it. But it was mostly a older ignorant attitude towards new people, new races coming into the neighborhoods.
You might have people say some derogatory remark to you, or feel as if they treat you differently than what you know they would treat someone white. But thats about as far as it will get. I am not getting into what happens when a argument starts and who will start flinging the "N" word around and the like. Yeah that kind of racism is kind of everywhere.
In the south, they will sick their dog on you when you walk passed their house.
In the South, they will see you, and go get friends to follow you in hopes of getting a good ole fashion "lynching" and this was as of 2000, 2001.
You can find this attitude in Virginia, West Virginia, Georgia(rural), Northern Florida, outside Gainesville.
But Racism in the North is NOTHING like in the South. Anyone who has been through it knows that.
June 30, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was in response to Louis
Not sure why it replied all the way down here, to this one :(
June 30, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Acting as if "everyone is racist" and that unique experience doesn't exist is ahistorical and will take away the tools we need to deal with our current circumstances."
I think it depends on what you hope to accomplish. When I read the NYT article, it seemed to focus on the Obama Campaign's decision to campaign in the South--anyway. They seem to have made a decision to look forward, you think it's more important to be an historical purist.
It seems to me that your purism is nothing more than your privilege talking. I am sure the African American residents of the South-- along with other Democrats and maybe even a handful of undecideds-- prefer that Obama, and the Democratic Party, think it's important to campaign there.
Of course, across races the South is a tad poorer than the North, and I suspect the liberal punditocracy ain't too cool with that, being subject to its own prejudices.
June 30, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing you can rely on to function without fail, the ability of the Republican Party to give us shit and call it gold.
This is the party that demands "tolerance for intolerance." The party that came up with the utterly moronic phrase "reverse racism" which denies the power dynamic that makes racism so potent. The party that has now so cowed the media that they use euphemism like "low racial sensitivity" and "traditional racial attitudes" to obscure that the Republican Party still relies on race hatred to maintain power.
The thing is, if the New York Times cannot must the grit to call racism when they see it, what hope do we have for honesty in this country?
June 30, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew:
You have hit the proverbial nail foresquare on the head! Finally someone had the courage to say it out loud.
I gre up in a medium-sized southern Virginia city 20 miles south of Richmond in the 1950s and 1960s - and I can assure you that you are absolutely correct in your assessment.
My Mom and Dad were born and raised in New York and Pennsylvania - and my Dad was transferred to his job in Virginia - along with 3 other couples from the same employer - in 1952. All of these couples were friends and were fairly liberal. My Mom and Dad even attended local demonstrations by black groups in their efforts to secure civil and voting rights.
The reaction from the locals was decidedly - unfriendly. The overwhelming majority of the locals were overtly hostile to them and ostracized them from local society (not that any of them had much interest in 'fitting in' with such society.)
The kicker came when my Dad was visited by a local Army colonel one evening. Apparently my parents' attendance at a rally in the local public park had come to the attention of my father's employer (Allied Chemical - now Allied Signal) - and the colonel politely informed my Dad that such activities were looked upon dubiously by both society and the business community (with its government contracts and all) and he was politely asked to 'rethink' his support for black civil and voting rights. (To my Dad's credit, he did not do so.)
Those of you who don't think Andrew is perfectly correct on the majority opinion of older white Southerners would do well to do a bit of research. And if you think FISA is scary, imagine how my Mom and I felt when an Army colonel appeared uninvited at our door one night, discussing the actions my folks had taken in their private lives.)
June 30, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your dad sounds like a very wise and brave man.
I think the point we're making is not that Andrew is wrong about racism in the South, but that it's an incomplete statement, because racism is also pervasive in the North. It's more covert, but it's definitely there. E.g., my previous comment about WV, PA, and OH. There are also several scientific studies that demonstrate a degree of unconscious racism in pretty much all of us, but that's another issue altogether.
June 30, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben:
He was. In fact, both my Mom and Dad were brave and determined to do what they knew in their minds and hearts was right. That often conflicted with 1950s and 1960s accepted social mixing principles.
My Mom told me of one of their Saturday afternoons spent in a park with about 200 black families at a voting rights rally. She told me how she and Dad could always spot the FBI informants:
June 30, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I grew up in a small southern city about 100 miles west of where you describe. I started school as Brown vs. Board of Education was being implemented in Virginia. I forget how I came to be in a conversation about the "black girl" getting on our school bus with my mother, but she made it clear to me racism was a bad thing that was all around but not part of OUR family. My mother was not a northern transferee and although the family could be traced to wealthy Virginians of earlier centuries, there was no wealth in her youth; her father drove a school bus at the end of the depression, but I guess he was lucky to have a job. The suggestion that all southerns of my mothers age, except those who were north transplants, were racist is offensive to me.
Golis may be commenting on a NYT article about the South in the first place, but he draws a clear line from South to racist. It is offensive.
July 1, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew, the nail plus head equation is appropriate. I live in Mobile, AL. My Senator, Jeff Sessions, believes that -- as a representative in Montgomery and Washington D.C. -- he operates under warrant of the Confederacy. He analogizes the white "situation" with blacks to Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds fighting in Iraq ().
I know the almost impossible task of expressing just how real racism is in the south. People like to think of perhaps a bit of a bias here and there. NO NO NO. These people are still fighting the Civil War. African Americans are less than we southerners. And so long as we southerners see it that way, we can never be held responsible for anything the dark skins touch, which is everything... that goes wrong. (It should make your skin crawl)
We will not confront them to their faces. (1) We got better things to do than tell them blacks the obvious. (2) They's scary as hell -- you go up to the dark un's and take the bullet for me. (3) We all likes it better this way -- the wall between us is mutually constructed. (4) Talking to the blacks won't get ya' anywhere, them don't understand the intricacies of white reason. (5) Black reasoning must be enslaved.
I worked for a woman who "theorized" (less than a year ago) that blacks were better off during slavery because the whites took care of their finances. Welcome to Mobile, Alabama. Funny thing is: we're the advancing city -- our nuanced racism is yet to reach the rural majority. They speak and thing more crudely than 1-5.
June 30, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here in the north folks won't say racist things... But it is remarkable to me how quick they are to segregate in fact. I note this because I do NOT segregate and often find myself to be the only white in the room. Northern racists are so much more subtle about it, until it comes time to exhibit how they really feel through action.
July 1, 2008 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the original point of your post, Andrew, was that the New York Times couldn't bring itself to call racism "racism."
Far be it from me to defend the mainstream media.
But of the three examples you single out (by italicizing them) two are direct quotes.
If the person you are quoting uses a euphemism like "traditional racial attitudes," then that's what you must put in your newspaper, rather than paraphrasing it so it says what you'd prefer.
I have not read the 1,300-word NYT article, so you may be right that it dances around the ugly elephant in the room.
I'll just note that the examples you cite aren't irrefutable evidence.
June 30, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, they use the quotes to construct the reality they see, which is apparently one in which neither they nor the people in the conversation see racism.
June 30, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but they collude in that sanitizing of racism by not questioning it oe paraphrasing it. They could have done so...and they have done to others.
June 30, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You made me read the article, Andrew, and I still disagree.
It isn't about the Democrats' "Southern problem," as you put it, but about whether they have a Southern opportunity this year.
The article acknowledges that the out-and-out racists are solidly in the Republican camp -- and are unlikely to switch for Obama.
Do the reasons really need elaboration?
Right, the actual word "racist" doesn't appear, but how unclear is the reference to people who "won't vote for him because he's African-American?"
It's not an analytical gem, but for me this article barely registers on the NYT shame-o-meter.
June 30, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looking forward to the racism post about New Jersey.
July 1, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Folks keep on about racism "in the south" but seem to forget that Reagan's "southern" strategy led to winning all but six states... I didn't know the south was so large.
July 1, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I always have thought that things would have turned out better if the south had been allowed to secede.
If that had happened the south today would be like Venezuela and the north would be like Denmark.
Trying to fit the two countries together since 1865 has made both of them uglier.
July 1, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink