« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
It's Racism, not Racists
This post was inspired by observer2's post about the Slate article and the effects of racism on the election. Just to clarify from the start, observer and Slate are not part of the problem that I'm talking about. They discussed the issue of racism without resorting to the typical framing of the issue. I'm talking about a broader frustration I have with the debate (or lack thereof) about racism that is most common.
Racists aren't the major problem in America.
Racism in America is clouded by the term "racist". While there definitely are some flat out racist people, that isn't the major issue.
It's the subtleties of prejudice that keep race an issue in America. The more overt forms of racism left minorities disproportionately at the bottom of the economic ladder. The economic system we have tends to keep people near where they began. People on the ladder tend to look differently upon people in different positions on the ladder. The disproportionate number of minorities toward the bottom of the ladder leads to stereotypes and assumptions about people based off of skin color.
I don't think there is anything malevolent about people who have this subtle form of racism. It's a result of the conditions around us all. That is not at all to say that it should be accepted and left at that, though. The problem is that it's seen as a dichotomy; it's described as either you are racist or you are not, but in reality it's nothing like that. People aren't allowed to address the subtleties though, because it's presented within the dichotomy. If they admit they have some subtle prejudices (as we all actually do), then they are racist. If they don't, then they can be not racist.
People get upset over accusations of being racist, because most of them are not. The entire debate about race is framed in a way that ensures that nothing can be done about it. The only way to get past the prejudices is by acknowledging reality to recognize what they are and where they come from.
Race is affecting this election, but as observer2 said, bringing up the issue won't help us. It hurts us because of the failure of the way the debate is framed. If you bring up race, then because of the way the race issue is framed, people think you are calling them or others racists.
There is not much point in trying to assign blame to anyone for the debate
being the way it is (but for fun, I mostly blame the main stream media for oversimplifying every issue that comes their way). My point is that the way that people frame the
racism debate needs to be changed for anything to actually be done
about it.
That's my little rant. I'd be interested to hear what you all think.
Comments (18)
"If they admit they have some subtle prejudices (as we all actually do), then they are racist."
Maybe I'm not following what you're getting at or maybe this is worded incorrectly, but if your prejudices are based on race then you are a racist, right? I agree, everyone is prejudice about something, i.e. disliking the neighbor kid because he is your son's competition in football, but if you dislike that neighbor kid because he is dark-skinned and "you know" how gifted African-Americans are at football then that is a display of racism--you are a racist. Not trying to argue, this is my understanding and welcome more knowledge.
August 24, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You could say that when your prejudices come with race then you are racist, but part of my point (which I wasn't clear with) is that the baggage and connotations with the word racist are what make that counterproductive in the debate. I think framing it as racist vs. not racist is what gets people. When most people hear the word "racist" they think of racial hatred, segregation, and those more overt forms of racism. So if someone is accusing them of being racist for something less than that, they get defensive and only examine their own thoughts as much as needed to prove that they don't hate another race.
Racism is a problem in America, but I think that racism is the overall effect of what is going on. The problem is not primarily because of racists (in the sense of all the baggage that comes with that word), but it's the cumulative effect of the subtle prejudices that we all have. Until people let themselves look at their own prejudices to try to find out where they come from and what can be done about them, they just linger.
I hope that helps clarify. Thanks for the comment. Race is something I've been very interested in and this is my first attempt at trying to piece some of my own thoughts together.
August 24, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you have "racism" without "racists?"
Racism is not something that occurs with no human intervention or interaction. Racism is a human creation.
You want to make "racists" have to fit a particularly narrow description: that is, they all have to southern white men who are lifelong card carrying members of the KKK or Aryan Nations or the John Birch Society.
But racism today is not based on or delivered in such overt Jim Crow stereotypes. It is "color-blind" -- think Colbert "I don't see race" -- while at the same time it is just as color-conscious as it has ever been.
That is why the use of code words about Obama try to hide what is, at its root, very racist. And the people who use those codes to energize their base, their electorate, are knowingly using race as a tool and that is the very definition of a racist. And pardon me for saying once again, that this is not some "innocent" slip of the tongue, but deliberate, part of an identifiable pattern, and done for a specific purpose.
If a candidate and his or her campaign -- past, present or future -- relies on these tactics to win an election, he or she is a racist.
We do ourselves no favor when we pretend a problem does not exist to full extent it does. Racism simply does not exist in a vacuum It must have people to perpetuate it. It's the racists who make it racism.
August 24, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trailerville... If you don't mind, I'm going to write an opposing piece separately.
This is an important dialogue and it should be continued. And for that reason, and that you opted to take it on, I'm giving you a big RECOMMEND! even though I disagree with your premise.
August 24, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
My rebuttal here: an alternative viewpoint
I know this is a touchy subject. But the idea that racism exists as a standalone problem in society without the persons who perpetuate it is problematic and simplistic.
We like to have things in degrees: Oh, he's just prejudiced. She's a bigot. They are such racists. But the problem is these are just three degrees of the same thing. If it makes you feel better to be only a little bit of one and none of the other, so be it. But the bottom line is we can't ignore the reality that to have racism, you have to have racists.
At that points to very large issue that affects every part of our society.
August 24, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should clarify that I'm not speaking to the way the McCain campaign has handled itself, but to the broader issue of racism and how it is typically framed.
As for the election, the McCain campaign is able to take advantage of the race issue through their subtle injecting of race into the election precisely because the debate of race isn't framed in a way where people normally recognize their prejudices.
I don't want racist to be defined in one way, I'm saying that the word has connotations in the general public and that overuse can be harmful to the debate since it keeps it framed within the status quo. All of us have racial prejudices at least sometimes in our thinking, and it isn't as simple as someone being either racist or not racist.
I think we agree on more than you think. Thanks for the response and the rec.
August 24, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade7243; Trailerville:
"Racism" has been formally defined for some time now as the belief that a given race is intrinsically inferior to another race or races. "Bigotry" and "prejudice" have covered other aspects of irrationally-based attitudes toward other races, religions and groups. I don't know exactly how or why that gets ignored in much popular usage but it seems clear that it is a considerably more powerful condemnation and carries a stronger sense of self-righteousness to refer to someone as a "racist" than to say one is "prejudiced".
Whatever the motivation or evolutionary track, I suggest that throwing the terms "racism" and "racist" around is unhelpful and even counter-productive, as Trailerville seems to be trying to point out.
It's a slippery hatchet, too, isn't it? Note Ms. Hilton's comments below, where she declares that "we know [racism] exists" because race was indicated as a "great factor" in the W. Va. and Kentucky primaries (but in North Carolina, racial preference - and therefore "racism" - was not indicated?), and her suspicion that racism is what keeps the P.U.M.A. movement alive (why not "sexism"?).
I'm with Trailerville. Let's not dismiss or oversimplify complex social and economic issues or dynamics, or try to lump people and behaviors into negative stereotypes. It tends to seperate us, and perpetuate mistrust and misunderstanding.
August 24, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's racism that I think is the hidden elephant that keeps this so called P.U.M.A. movement alive.
It had no name to identify itself during the Democratic primary but we knew it existed, especially when exit polls in West Virginia and Kentucky revealed that race was a great factor in voters' decision.
I am afraid there's a lot more than that exists, there have been a lot reported stories of vandalism, death threats, and racial slurs thrown that Obama campaign supporters have faced working the midwest. A lot of eye opening experiences that Obama campaigners have death with that have only garnered local news reported at best but the mainstream media has completely ignored it. But at the same time the Obama campaign has also purposely decided defuse these events by not drawing any attention to them to avoid any potential trouble that could end up being counter productive to the campaign's movement. It is largely why I am often annoyed when the media talks about Hillary being victimized in this election campaign, because this story is only being reported one-sided.
August 24, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tankerville,
I posted a comment in support of your argument on Jade's rebuttal of your essay. I mostly agree with your argument about the distinction between Racism and racists. Racists will not be converted in this election cycle... the instruments of racism though can be tackled.
This election gives one hope, the Obama's will give the rest of the country a chance to REALLY get to know a black family and perhaps help to chip away at some of the stereotypes feeding into that institution.
August 24, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought we had the Huxtables to do that.
August 24, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, and the Brady Bunch too.
August 24, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Jeffersons you mean?
August 25, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry!! Meant Trailerville :-(
August 24, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do I think? I think you are a racist who is willing to accept the assignment of social positions based on skin color and wants to define racist as something besides someone who thinks it is legitimate to assign people to social and economic positions based on skin color. Sorry, you don't get to redefine yourself as a good guy.
August 24, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not at all my argument. I'm sorry if I'm not being totally clear.
I'm saying that while there are some people who think "it is legitimate to assign people to social and economic positions based off of skin color" (and those people are certainly a problem), the most prevalent effects of racism as it stands today aren't those overt actions or directly hostile ways of thinking. It's the cumulative effect of millions of well intentioned people with subtle prejudices that they fail to recognize. The way the debate is framed right now hinders people from understanding and dealing those prejudices.
Right now people are assigned to social and economic positions in part because of skin color, and that is unacceptable. My post is about searching for the reasons for things being the way they are and finding a way to change that.
August 24, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where I get lost in all this is the way in which behaviour doesn't rate a mention.
I don't evaluate people based on the color of their skin: I refer to how they behave and the ideas they propound.
And I think this is where people get upset when they're accused of racism when they're in fact reacting to behaviour and/or ideas.
To me the most classic example is the one of church so far in this election. Never having been to a black church, I was simply stunned and appalled by the Wright videos: the crudity and divisiveness of them. So I understand why so many Americans won't ever forgive Obama for having attended the church - and especially for having taken his children to it - for years. But I reject the idea that that reaction is racist. I downloaded a video of an African American church singing the black national anthem and was simply enchanted by it. Such an innocence to it. I, an atheist, loved it! I've watched it over and over again.
People either empathise with or react against culture: behavioural patterns and ideas that press different emotive buttons.
So how do you get definitive about where it's sheer racism that's the operative factor and where it's behaviour/culture/ideas that's alienated people?
The people who actually say they wouldn't vote for a black man are straightforward. But how do you make the case that playing on the lunch bucket blue collar people resenting the `bittergate` remarks, asking for the price of arugala, is racist? How is it any different from the video of Kerry windsurfing?
I don't see how the principal critiques of Obama that the McCain camp are mounting are racist or based on appeals to racism. The patriotism issue is a direct function of Wright. The lack of experience has nothing to do with race. Neither does the celebrity issue.
I see Obama's drop in appeal as being a function of mistakes he and his campaign have made and his own decision to run without having first put in the time. eg He himself said when he was first in the US senate that he wouldn't be qualified to run in 2008. I think he's like absolutely everyone else in the world: reaping the seeds he himself has sown.
August 24, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an excellent point.
I prefer to differentiate mere "prejudice" (pre-conceptions about different people of all races, genders, ages, backgrounds, etc.) and "racism", which is a bit antiquated anyway. "Ism" implies a system or ideology. Yet true Racism -- the ideology which propped up slavery and then Jim Crow -- in that sense is mostly dead. Few eugenicists or racial supremacists are around anymore.
Prejudice, on the other hand, is alive and well, and will probably always be. It's probably our nature to quickly judge people based on hearsay, stereotypes, etc. When people call some a "racist" (which they are almost certainly not, unless the person is David Duke) they really mean the person has prejudices. But then again, so do all of us.
A better discussion would focus on the behavior, not the person.
August 24, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm right there with you on most of that, but I do think that the word "racism" has a use in the overall discussion. As I mentioned before, I would call the cumulative effects of all of the prejudices and bigotry (the subtle and not so subtle) racism. These effects are very real and very unacceptable. I would worry that weakening the description of the overall effects loses the big picture and the urgency of the situation.
Thanks for the comments, everyone. It's been a great discussion.
August 25, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment