Seems mostly to be white people that want to get past civil-rights problems, and have a conveniently color-blind society. Problem is they lack standing, only they don't seem to know that. If Obama acts to move past history into the next stage, by simply acting such, it's OK (pace Rev. Jackson).

But only he can do that. The perpetrator has no standing to announce his own exoneration. The best route to the next stage is precisely electing Obama.

Well said Jade. Racism consists of beliefs and beliefs can't exist without believers.

Each of us harbor bigotry, whether racial, religious, or whatever, to one degree or another; and it is the responsibility of each of us identify such in ourselves and work to shed such.

Great post! You were right with the "he" pronoun. I just wanted to say a few things here.

As I mentioned in the comments in my post, I think that we agree on quite a bit. We both think that racism is a serious problem today and that the debate on race needs stop being too oversimplified for anything to be done about it. Most of the disagreement seems to come from the use of the term "racist" and its part in moving the debate to a new level.

"The most effective way to defuse the race bomb in elections is to call out racist advertising and racist campaigning when you see it."

I completely disagree with this one. When Obama said something to the extent of "the other guys are telling you I'm risky because I look different," McCain accused him of playing the race card. By doing this, McCain was able to bring race into the campaign and make people feel sorry for him by somehow twisting it into a subtle accusation of Obama being racist. It worked, and in a later poll, over half of Americans thought OBAMA was being racist in his comments. That defies all logic, but it shows the perils of Obama even hinting at race. It's also indicative one of those many agreements we have, and that is that the discussion and way of thinking that most people have about race is way too simplified to do anything about it.

Good post.

We're all racists to one degree or another, except Ghandi or maybe Will Rodgers.

All the countries in the world are racist to one degree or another except maybe Lesotho.

I would suggest that we (the US) are arguably the least racist of them all.

Some examples:
I'm Swedish - Sweden is racist toward anyone who is not a Swede, goes against their image.

My wife is Korean - Koreans are racists even towards North Koreans.

Japan is racist against all other asian types that came in handy when they occupied Korea and many parts of China.

We are the only country in the world that is a true "melting pot" IMO.

I think you're both right. Of course, racism comes from racist people. But there are also people who make generalizations along racial lines and they're wrong but they don't mean any harm. The key is to help them past that, not to alienate them by tarring them with a scarlet "R."

It's also the case, that when we get into the ambiguities that people can be falsely accused of being racists, especially when we get into the issue of "code words" which are very real and give the person who uses them a bit of plausible deniability.

The most typical code word used against Obama is that he's "arrogant." This is code for him "not knowing his place" and for him being an "uppity negro." There is no doubt in my mind that some people who call Obama arrogant mean to use the code and that they hope their message is ultimately understood.

But, absent the issue of race and code words, is the idea that Obama is an arrogant man really so unreasonable? One could argue, and I definitely would, that any person who thinks they should wield the power of the presidency is absolutely arrogant. You're seeking out a position where you can directly affect the lives of others without their consent if necessary.

Of course, McCain and his folk don't mean that when they say arrogant. If they did, they'd have to admit that McCain is equally as arrogant. I'm only trying to point out why both of you are right -- racists perpetuate racism and they do it in ways more subtle than Birchers and KKK types ever did. There are also people who are unintentionally racist who can be dealt with reasonably, through gentle education. Finally, there are people who might use some of the code words and yet not be racists at all -- they're rather making judgments about individuals and are rightly offended if their opponents attempt to marginalize them by calling them racists.

Here is the thing:

When Americans use the term "racism" they mean racial prejudice. That's a bad thing and we all agree should be abolished in as short an order as possible.

However, there is another, very pernicious and ingrained use of "race" in America, one that is almost "built-in" into the fabric of society. It is explicit acknowledgement by most Americans that "race" (a very vague notion, not used in any serious anthropological studies for years), is a useful informational concept, telling one something important, identifying or otherwise worthy about a person. This is never questioned by most Americans, the idea that "race" exists in an informationally important sense is never questioned. I would call this state of affairs "racialism" - a division of humans based on "racial" identities, while attempting to deny prejudices that go with that approach. That, it would seem to me, would be a great American racial paradox.

As someone who was not born here, I was pretty stunned to learn that most Americans accept "racialism" as a defacto state of human condition, and almost never question its applicability to inter-human relations in the late 20th - early 21

i agree with goldskinner...i am in between, not caucasian and not black, i am hispanic and believe racial innuendos are not a thing of the past..i guess you have be a non-white to truly understand how it feels.....it is a delicate issue....although we have to be careful to not paint everyone with the racist brush, it is phony to pretend that obama is not being discriminated against b/c of his color...i have no doubt in my mind that had richardson made it, he would have had it equally hard.....

dont get me wrong, obama has made great strides in spite of, but it is not fair to say or think that raciscm has disappeared or is non-existent simply because obama has made it this far...even if he is elected, there are yet strides to be made....we all harbor certain prejudices against each other, but i can guarantee you that never has any non-white voter ever said he/she will not press that dial for the dem or repub candidate b/c he/she is white-Never...obama is getting that and any non-white with such high aspirations (after being called presumptious and arrogant for having the gall to run) will get similar treatment as obama..some worse, some not as bad, but bad treatment all the same...

i do agree that you dont have to be racist to prey on racial tension to win...i dont believe that the clintons are racist, but they preyed on our bigotry to win over some people...they even used my people to advantage...it worked for clinton, but those same people jumped on obama's ship once clinton was out...so it was temporary gain! in the end, i would like to believe that my folks finally figured it all out--today it is obama's turn, tomorrow, it could very well be one of us lighter hued folks, so we better be careful how we allow ourselves to be used...

Goldspinner and Cher:

I am not saying that race should be ignored or telling anyone to shut up. I think racism is a huge issue, but it's framed in a way that it is practically ignored now. I'm describing a different way of framing the issue that may allow race to be addressed. I'm don't want anyone to think that we live in or are anywhere near living in a post racial world.

I worry that framing it as either you are "racist" or you are not makes people stop as soon as they see that they don't hate people of another race. They then ignore the subtle prejudices which I think have some of the worst effects in the world today.

I think we all agree on much more than you are thinking. If you take a look at the original post along with my comments on there, it might clear some of it up.

A good discussion all around (with some obvious exceptions).

Racism can take several forms, not all of which require the culpability of malicious racists. Racism can be institutionalized. As an example, take urban ethnic residency patterns. It doesn't take all that much in the way of in-group identification and association to produce racially homogeneous neighborhoods. Then, since aggregate figures on race, wealth, and income show an inverse correlation between the certain minority racial identities and economic prosperity, banks decide not to open a branch in the area (because of income levels, not race per se). Having a job becomes less rewarding because people only have convenient access to check-cashing outlets (which means an extra tax on income). Already low employment is depressed further. Since fewer people are commuting to work, city planners cut down on the number of buses traveling to and from the area, making gainful employment more difficult still. Thus, a racism spiral can take hold without any individual even knowing anything about the racial characteristics of the neighborhood, or without anyone being explicitly racist beyond preferring to live near people of their own "kind." Of course, these factors can be amplified by the actions of malicious racists who seek to enforce restrictive covenants in housing contracts or who design public transportation routes to isolate minority neighborhoods, but no such intervention is required for institutionalized racism to take hold.

That said, I believe the type of racism employed by the McCain campaign thus far is the personal, not institutionalized kind. It appeals to the racists' feelings of superiority, entitlement, and resentment.

But, as for what to do about it, the answer is right back in Mendelberg's book. "The Race Card" does indeed note that the effect of the Willie Horton ad was neutralized by outing its racist intent. However, it wasn't outed by the Dukakis campaign, but by Jesse Jackson. Obama would need a credible, vocal third party (not a surrogate) to play the racism referee.

I think the word "racist" doesn't help much.

I'd rather differentiate prejudice from the "ism" in "racism".

"Ism" implies a systematic ideology. But people's preconceptions and prejudices are mostly unintentional and unconscious. Hardly a systematic dogma that they have signed onto willingly.

A Communist is an ardent supporter of a school of thought. A Racist would be an ardent ideologue abotu race. Think David Duke.

Prejudices are a very different thing. They are pernicious, everyone has them to some degree, and they are probably part of our nature: Human communities 10,000 years ago were mostly built upon kinship, and group loyalty was necessary for survival. We distrust and dislike the unfamiliar. We like people liek ourselves and close to ourselves.

Prejudice is why racial problems will never go away. Not "racism", the system that propped up slavery and Jim Crow, and that we rightfully have thrown in the garbage.

Few people nowadays are true Racists. But all of us are prejudiced to some degree.

You called the President of your party a racist.

Shove your race card.

Unforgivable.