« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
How Racism Works For Me
Howard1 recently posted "How Racism Works". The discussion threads in that post have helped me crystallize some thoughts on the touchy subject of race in politics. I'd like to relate a personal story that, perhaps, can speak to some of that subject, and maybe shed some light on how some people use racism as fuel instead of retardant. It's a bit long, so I apologize in advance...that was for you, Ripper. :-)
I am a Black man who was born and raised in East St. Louis, IL. It's a town that has spent much of the last 30 years as an object of national ridicule. Even Richard Pryor used to joke about working "the kamikaze shift in East St. Louis". The past ten years have been kinder, thanks to casino money and falling property values that have encouraged some businesses to return. Times are still hard there, though.
When I went to East St. Louis Senior High in the early '90s, I was one of the best high school chess players in Illinois, and the #1 high school player in the metro St. Louis area. As a result, I did get some media coverage, and I was reasonably well known. East St. Louis Senior is known for championship football, basketball and track - not so much for chess.
One Saturday, we went to a tournament at Horton Watkins High, which is in Ladue. Ladue is a suburb of St. Louis that has often been listed among the ten richest towns in America. Horton Watkins reflects this affluence, as it resembles a mansion more than a high school on the outside - and a high-tech lab more than a high school on the inside.
In between my first and second games, I walked around, marveling at the school. I didn't go into any of the rooms, though they weren't locked. I wondered what it would be like to attend a school where the faucets in the science classrooms worked - never mind the faucets in the student bathrooms, into which I never ventured during my time at "The Side". The rooms were all bright, airy, well furnished, and immaculate.
I was in mid-drool at one carpeted area when a security guard approached me. He started questioning me about why I was in the building. I got halfway through one sentence when he cut me off and told me I was trespassing. I got halfway through an apology when he cut me off again and told me he was going to call the local police. He grabbed my elbow and dragged me to the school office. I bit my tongue and walked along with him to avoid any further scene, but I wasn't in my happy place just then.
I wore my hair in a box cut back in '92, when this happened. But I was in a polo shirt, Dockers and loafers, and was clean shaven. (That was what I usually wore, unless I was doing gym or yard work.) So my overall appearance was not slovenly.
When we got to the office, he half-pushed me through a swinging door and into the principal's office. He ordered me to sit down while he called the cops.
The principal happened to walk in shortly thereafter. The guard hurried up to him and told him what I had done. The principal saw me, and said, "Boyd, what are you doing in here?" The guard's face fell through the floor.
When I explained what had happened, the principal walked me back to the cafeteria where we were playing, apologized to me, and apologized to my coach. The guard came by shortly thereafter and did the same thing. I elected not to answer him, primarily to avoid saying something classless. I could have been charitably described as aggrieved at that particular moment.
Later, the Watkins faculty sponsor came over to apologize as well. He was absolutely livid, and told me the guard should have at least recognized me. He then showed me a copy of that week's school paper - where a story about the upcoming tournament ran on the front cover, along with a picture of me from the previous year's event.
Now, every adult involved in that situation - including our coach - was white. Ladue has virtually no African-American presence.
Was race a factor in this incident? Objectively, one could argue it wasn't - I was in a part of the school that wasn't being used for the tournament. It wasn't locked either, though, and even the guard admitted I hadn't harmed anything.
Realistically, given the totality - the guard's aggressive behavior, his unwillingness to listen to me at all, treating me like some sort of thug - I came to the conclusion that race was the ONLY reason he reacted the way he did.
Now, to be fair, every other adult associated with the school treated me very well. I found myself, though, automatically questioning them and their motives. I wondered what they said behind my back. I wondered if they'd have behaved toward me as they did if I wasn't "the chess guy" or hadn't been in some local papers. I began painting them with the same brush I used on the guard. And that absolutely ruined my day.
A few weeks later, I was still brooding. But then I realized something. Yes, I'd had a bad experience with a white man. Yes, he deserved to be called out on his racist behavior. But that was no reason to believe that all white people were similarly motivated. I thought back to how the school reacted to my incident - the faculty actually sent a letter of apology to our principal. And I realized that maybe the guard wasn't the only one operating on assumptions and misconceptions.
I allowed one idiot to make me hostile toward an entire group of people, when their behavior as a whole gave me no reason to do so. I allowed that because I had an underlying assumption that all whites had certain racial prejudices. I came to realize, though, that one's behavior is the only thing on which one can fairly be judged. And I became more open and understanding as a result.
What I see in this campaign is that many people are struggling with two things - reality and predisposition. On the one hand, I've come to believe that most people are essentially good and decent, and ultimately want to do positive things. But I also believe that most people - especially Whites - have preconceptions based on stereotypes. And, while stereotypes are generally unfair, they do grow out of some basic truths.
Watch your local news sometime. The lead stories are almost always negative - and many of them involve crime, squalor and death. Blacks have a starring role in a disproportionate percentage of these stories in Pittsburgh, and my experience in Chicago and St. Louis says that's not abnormal. Does the media owe equal time for White crime? Do Whites commit less crime than Blacks? Do Whites hide their crimes better than Blacks?
I don't know the answers. But everyone who thinks past their noses has probably asked themselves some variation of at least one of these questions. Most of the time, when we can't - or don't want to - find an answer, we simply create one. Then, that answer becomes a prism through which we filter our experiences.
My phonebanking and canvassing work has led me to believe that many people are experiencing a fundamental disconnect when they try to process Barack Obama. That disconnect is related to the images they see on the news, in movies, on ESPN, and on the streets where they live. I think Joe and Jane Six-Pack are suspicious of Obama - despite the fine-tooth comb that's been taken to his life - because they haven't ever really *seen* anyone like him. Yes, there have been accomplished and educated Blacks. None, though, had really made a strong case to be PRESIDENT. These people would have an easier time accepting Snoop Dogg than Obama.
We have had 43 Presidents. 42 of them have been White Anglo-Saxon Protestant men. Think about that for a second. We've only had one President - the Catholic, John F. Kennedy - who didn't fit that exact mold. So, when many American voters think of a President, they just don't think of a Black man. That's why it's so hard to be first. And that's why Obama has to do so many things that we wouldn't expect a Presidential candidate to do.
On an infinitesimal level, I understand why Obama holds his tongue at some of the most slanderous stuff, why he picks and chooses where and when to punch and counterpunch. If I'd blown up at that guard years ago, I could've found myself in real trouble, regardless of whether I deserved it. The only thing I could do was hold my temper.
All Obama's trying to do is convince over 100 million voters that he's not a drug-using, service-dodging, White-hating, wealth-taxing, socialist, liberal, elitist, Communist-Muslim atheist who advocates safe sex for kindergarteners. If that's not enough chainsaws to juggle, he has to do all that while riding a unicycle of unity and explaining to people that he's really a devoted Christian husband and father who has given his life to serving others and who has the temperament, judgment and intellect to lead our tattered nation and a combustible world. Every single word and deed is fraught with the danger of upending this remarkable juggling act.
And yet, disbelieving ears still refuse to hear, and lying eyes still refuse to see. The people I describe still repeat the same smears and lies. After all, "Jerome Corsi said it, and Fox News reported it, so it must be true." (I've gotten that response more than once in phonebanking.)
I personally find Barack Obama to be a remarkable man, who has retained his composure in the face of scandalous attacks on him, his record, his faith and his family. Any red-blooded man - myself included - who had to face the hundredth part of what Obama has faced in this election would probably have long since started busting the heads of his attackers. And not one of those men would last a day in the Oval Office, because there isn't a day where the President of the United States isn't burned in effigy somewhere.
The moment Obama blows up at someone - just imagine him publicly having any of the profane tirades that have somehow become the gloss on John McCain's "maverick" myth! - he'll become nothing more than another caricature, permanently disqualified from being President.
I've made the comparison between Obama's candidacy and Jackie Robinson's major league debut before. As you read the various histories that have been written about Robinson, you come to understand that he had a great deal of inner anger about the way he was treated at the start of his career with the Dodgers.
Of course, he had every right to be angry. But the whole reason Branch Rickey picked Robinson to break the color barrier in baseball wasn't just because of Robinson's playing ability, which was unquestioned. Rickey picked Robinson because he believed Robinson would be able to endure being spat on by fans, openly cursed by other players and defamed by the press, and keep playing without complaint. Robinson excelled, even with all that negativity towering over him.
It's now been 61 years since a Black man hit the big leagues, and Blacks have come a long way since then. We've seen Black billionaires, Fortune 500 CEOs, entertainers, moguls, movie stars, designers, entrepreneurs, professors, activists, race car drivers, jockeys, and politicians. But never have we seen a truly viable Presidential candidate of color before now.
So, when I go out canvassing, I keep all that in mind. When I talk to an undecided voter or a hostile voter on the phone, I remember that we're working against virtually everything in our nation's relatively short history to get this man elected.
I hold my anger at the injustice. I hold my despair at the seemingly irreversible backward thinking and illogic. I hold my horror at the idea that this man, so uniquely qualified for this time in our history, may not have a chance to do what so many of us so desperately want him to do - lead this country.
I carry hope - not just Obama's hope, but my hope, and the hopes of my family. The oldest girls actually talk about politics - with knowledge, no less! It's all I can do to keep from keeling over in shock whenever they talk about electoral votes or Sarah Palin's latest lie. My five-year-old son shakes me and says, "Daddy, look! It's Barack Obama!" whenever he sees Obama's face on TV. And my wife registered to vote this year for the first time - then promptly contacted a field office and planted an Obama sign on our lawn.
And, above all else, I do what so many of all colors have always done when confronted with injustice. I dig in, and I work. I work against the tide. I work in places where conventional wisdom says Obama can't win. I volunteer to call southern Missouri. I call South Carolina. I call central Pennsylvania. I canvass in West Virginia. I canvass in southern Ohio. I go to the places where "Obama" is one of the seven words you can't say on television.
Then, I silently say a prayer of thanks whenever I encounter racist reaction in my election work. For me, it only adds fuel to my urgency in getting Obama elected.
Comments (130)
Okay Reed: I didn't read all of your blog past your personal story. But I did read enough. Here are the FACTS:
1. All white people are racists, STOP - DON'T GET MAD - this is according to Tim Wise, and I happen to believe him. How could they not be when the media does what it does. Some (even my aunt) are married to African Americans have African American sons/daughters and then get nervous getting on an elevator with a black man but not a white man. She might talk herself out of that - knowing that it's not rational but it's there - in the conditioning.
2. All black people are distrusting of whites. And why shouldn't we be?
3. 3/4 of all news stories about African Americans (AA) are negative.
4. Most violent crimes are committed by WHITES - these statistics are readily available on FBI site, etc
5. 97% of AAs will NEVER COMMIT A VIOLENT CRIME
6. 70% of all drug users and dealers are white BUT 80% of the convictions are people of color
7. Whites are 5x more likely to be a victim of violence from another white
8. A white man with a GED and a felony will have an easier time getting a job than a black man with a four year degree and a clean record.
Yes, it's been 61 years since Jackie Robinson - but don't for get Madame CJ Walker, or even Robert Smalls, TERENTIUS PUBLIUS AFER, etc, etc, etc. just keep in mind Obama will NOT undo 1000 years of white supremacy thinking. Just like all the others that have come before him couldn't.
When I'm out canvassing the thing that get's me the most is: "he's the most liberal voting senator" - so i've come to ask "what does that mean?" I mean i understand what it means, but what does it mean to them and their lives? what has he voted for that they are against. and 9x out of 10 they have no answer they just repeat the tag line, like McCain does, bobbing their heads up and down like the dolls in the back of car windows.
September 18, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you didn't read it all, you are insufficiently informed to comment, because all of it is essential to the whole picture.
Like most people who are satisfied with their world view, you picked and chose what, out of the whole blog, you would respond to, and then proceeded to eliminate all context (like, for example, the personal story). I find it ironic - and rather sad - that you'd employ Rovian Reading™.
Having said that, I'll have to agree to disagree with you. I have better things to do than be distrusting. For that matter, so does my candidate.
Part of "change" involves introspection. Gandhi implored all people to be the change you want to see in the world. I figure he knew a little bit about the subject, so I'll take his advice, if it's all the same to you.
September 18, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
STOP READING THE COMMENTS
If you are reading the comments just STOP.
There is no point to reading any further. An internet discussion on racism? Please, not worth your time. Just scroll back up and mentally thank the author for sharing his story and his viewpoint. That is all I have to say.
September 19, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fantastic diary Reed. Thanks so much. I appreciate that fact rather than letting any one person (in this case a shameless bigot) get you down and keep you there, you took a dynamic path instead.
Cheers,
-AF
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
September 18, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Race-baiting Obamabots like Boyd Reed can't believe that some of us don't give a fuck about Obama's color.
The lying con-man Barack Obama could be as white as snow, or purple with green polka-dots, and if he still lied about filibustering the FISA bill when he was campaigning with Feingold, if he still attacked Hillary Clinton a hundred times about NAFTA and supported NAFTA-Peru himself, when 4,000,000 Peruvian farmers and workers were striking against it, if he still sided with the NRA about an individual right to carry handguns in Washington DC, if he still voted to fund the war in Iraq again and again in the US Senate and kept claiming to be innocent of all responsibility for it because of one little speech when he was still a local politician in Chicago, if he still proposed a ridiculous no-mandates healthcare plan, if he still supported offshore drilling, if he still proposed tax-cuts along with an expanded war in Afghanistan...
Even if he were as white as snow, or purple with green polka-dots, and he still kept bullshitting about taxes, the war in Afghanistan, offshore drilling, healthcare, the war in Iraq, gun-control, NAFTA and FISA...
I would still criticize exactly the same way I criticize him now, but race-baiting Obamabots like Boyd Reed want to reduce everything to color, because...
Race-baiting Obamabots like Boyd Reed don't care about gun-control, or NAFTA, or healthcare, or insane tax-cuts, or Iraq or Afghanistan, or the environment, or the destruction of the Fourth Amendment by the FISA bill that Obama promised to filibuster and didn't, or the millions of Peruvian workers and farmers whose way of life will be destroyed by the NAFTA-Peru agreement that Obama supported...
Race-baiting Obamabots like Boyd Reed are obsessed with "race," they're obsessed with color, and all of them are closer to the White Supremacist trash that they pretend to hate than they are to Martin Luther King, who dreamed of a nation where "race" and color didn't matter any more, where a man was judged by the content of his character instead of the color of his skin.
So Boyd Reed and the rest of the race-baiting Obamabots who pretend that the only reason anyone could possibly criticize Obama is because of his color will never believe that some of us have judged Obama by the content of his character instead, and found nothing...
No firm principles, no honesty, no real commitment to the environment or peace or healthcare or the Constitution or farmers or workers, or anything except his own ambition.
But it's always all about color for the race-baiting Obamabots, and all other issues disappear behind the supreme importance of color, color, color, color...
And that makes Boyd Reed and the other race-baiting Obamabots more "racist" than the millions of people they accuse of the same brutal simplification.
September 19, 2008 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm almost as worried as the most worried person about life in a Palin/McCain America, but every time I see Obama losing in yet another poll I also remember all those nasty Obamabots who constantly try to race-bait the rest of us into voting for Obama because nobody but "racists" could possibly vote against their bullshit Messiah Barack Obama.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
McCain 265, Obama 252
Harharharhar!!!
Suck on that, Obamabots!
September 19, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Inside of every cynic is a bitterly disappointed idealist. Hopefully by now you have discovered some other standard-carrier who meets your lofty standard of perfection and you're just waiting to bestow your wisdom on we cretins who don't get it.
So just who are you going to vote for anyway, Jacob?
September 19, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go review my post from June, "The Difference Between Shifting And Floundering". That would be an example of me criticizing Obama. My August post, "The Misuse Of Bill Clinton", would be another example.
Then, go review your post from August, "The Least Incomprehensible Candidate". Review our comment exchange in that post. Those would be examples of how to raise objections and arguments in an honest fashion, without having to resort to the puerile behavior that makes most of your posts unreadable.
It's too bad, because some of your stuff - like your elegy of Mahmoud Darwish - is very good. But you are too wrapped up in whatever fuels your hatred and irrationality to have a real dialogue.
September 19, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jacob Reed is not only nasty but full of shit.
September 19, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
JNagarya,
I'm assuming you meant "Jacob Freeze" is nasty and full of shit, not the OP "Boyd Reed", in which case I am in absolute 100% agree with you. It's sad to witness someone accuse someone else of being "race baiting" over and over again without realizing that doing so only highlights their own hypocrisy and discredits themselves in the process. What a troll.
September 19, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are definitely opposed to Obama as president because of his race. If you weren't you wouldn't be clinging to lies and smears and you wouldn't sound as angry as you are. You also wouldn't say that Boyd's comments were "race baiting." He shared a story and some thoughts that were very personal and drew on his lifetime of experiences. It was well written and obviously was posted to offer his perspective and insight.
September 20, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a few choice words for the self-styled "Urban Revolution".
"All white people are racists"? That’s the perennial topper on my list of all-time MOst prejudicial statements. Yes, I may be white but I have not a racist bone in my body.
The reason why I hear this particular phrase most frequently is that I make a choice not to associate with bigots of any kind. If I should learn that someone I know is a bigot, I give 'em an earful and move on. So here's my earful to you…
You don't know me. So where the hell do you get off calling me a racist as fait accompli? What makes it OK for you to say such a thing and why would you say it? Oh, that's right. You're TheUrbanRevolution. I guess it cannot be bigotry if it falls from your pen.
Shame on you too for trotting out an "anti-racist" advocate to give cover to your racist rhetoric. Just because Tim Wise sez it is so doesn't make it so. I may watch a lot of TV but it is extremely narrow-minded of both you and Mr. Wise to assume that I lack the intellect and capacity to not let the media and the entertainment business color my social perceptions and values.
Bigotry begets bigotry. And it’s just as ugly coming from you as it is from anyone else.
-AF
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
September 18, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll explain it to you. It isn't complicated:
1. Every culture on the palnet is racist. That's a given.
2. Every member of every culture on the planet is inculcated with her/his culture's racism/s before s/he knows to reject it.
3. Every member of every culture is racist. It's a given.
4. Your failure to grasp that leaves you locked into the denial: "I'm not racist!" instead of accepting the given, and moving to the relevant question: "What do I/we do about it?"
Mr. Reed, instead of being black-white -- "binary" -- about it is honestly and openly struggling, in keeping with honestly addressing that question.
It's the denial of being racist -- especially the hostile form of it -- that is especially revealing.
Not-so-by-the-way, should it matter to you -- and it probably does as concerns your accusations of "race-baiting": I ain't black, or "of color" in any perceivable sense.
September 19, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please. Could you possibly be any more condescending?
According to your view:
If I state, “I am not racist,” I’m a racist in denial.
If I had said, “Oh, yes. I’m a racist too.” I’m a racist but at least I’m honest about it.
If I supported Rock Against Racism, I’m racist assuaging my white guilt.
If I had thrown bricks during the Southie busing riots, I get style points for being upfront about my bigotry.
If I love my Korean-American and African-American nephews equally as much as I love my “white” nephews, I’m a deceiver passing for a cool uncle.
If I had made excuses to avoid them and give ‘em crappy Christmas presents, I certainly can’t be accused of ambiguity.
If I call shenanigans on your BS “everyone’s a racist” meme, I’m a delusional cracker.
If you insist on extolling said meme, you are somehow morally and intellectually superior.
My “hostility” comes not from my advanced stage of denial -- far from it. My “hostility” stems from the fact that I believe you are terribly and profoundly wrong. I reject this cynical, patronizing and narrow view with every fibre of my being. If you believe that makes me a deeply closeted racist, then so be it.
Forgive me for refusing to recognize how pre-judging everybody a racist is a sort of progress. I also fail to grasp how kicking off any discussion with negativity, the perpetuation of stereotypes and cynicism will have a constructive conclusion. This is exponentially true when the subject is as volatile as race in America. So it turns out I’m not just racist whitey, but an idealistic imbecile too.
Exactly what, other than the obvious intellectual/moral superiority trip and a modicum of street cred, does your posture offer?
-AF
Bigotry begets bigotry.
Prejudice begets prejudice.
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
September 19, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is racist to say that all white people are racist. Saying it only continues the cycle of racial tension. Much of the rest of what you have to say amounts to nothing more than your own private version of urban myths.
September 18, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not racist to recognize and accept the fact that EVERYONE is racist -- thus that we are ALL in this together, and therefore ALL responsible for either perpetuating it, or addressing and struggling with and resolving it.
I do get tired of the vociferous and hostile denial of being racist . . .
September 19, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The blog is excellent -- thank you for it, Mr. Reed.
And there is also truth in your statement on the point. I've made the point ath everyone is racist -- become so before they know to reject it. So the question is not, "Who is/n't racist?" but, "How do I/we deal with it?"
Both Mr. Reed and you show the struggle that goes with realizing an dhonestly addressing the latter question. I believe it is increasingly normal to do so, and therefore requires less courage than it once did. But there is still a long way to go.
As for Obama: brilliant. A pleasure to hear speak, even if one isn't paying attention to the content. Can anyone in truth say that it is a pleasure -- at all, let alone equal? -- to listen to Bush speak?
And: Obama would be way ahead if not (perceived as being only) black. I think he's going to win; but the margin won't be as great if he were the same person but white. Anyone who would deny those facts would be in effect denying their own racism.
September 19, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great Post! Calls for some East St Louis Toodle-Oo!
Duke Ellington
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6LmSj26RRc
Steely Dan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVxtypNNy6w
September 18, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
All Obama's trying to do is convince over 100 million voters that he's not a drug-using, service-dodging, White-hating, wealth-taxing, socialist, liberal, elitist, Communist-Muslim atheist who advocates safe sex for kindergarteners.
----------------------------------------------------
Obama is a flawed candidate in so many ways that are not connected to racism. If McCain wasn't so flawed and the last 8 years of republican governance so discredited Obama would not stand a chance at getting elected.
Drug using? Well he admitted it and that matters to some people. It doesn't matter to me, I've used more illegal drugs than Obama and for a longer period of time. I support legalization. But it matters to enough people that Clinton had to claim he only smoked once and didn't inhale. Bush had to refuse to discuss his illegal drug use. Each election cycle there are ballot initiatives to decriminalize marijuana usage and they routinely fail, unless specifically addressing medical marijuana use. This is not a racist issue. While times are changing people still care about illegal drug use.
Service dodging? He's running against a man who many believe is a war hero. Whether this view is correct or not the contrast between McCain's military service and Obama's lack is surely something that people will consider whether Obama was black or white.
White hating? I don't thing the vast majority of of voters think Obama is white hating. But people do wonder how he could spend 20 years in a church listening to the sermons of Rev Wright. Obama offered this man to the american people as his mentor and spiritual guide, in essence as a character reference on his resume. Its a rather damaging association.
Wealth taxing, liberal, socialist. You know these aren't words suddenly thrust onto the political stage for the first time to attack Obama. Every white democratic candidate for president has faced the same accusations.
Elitist, I'm not really sure what that means. but its clear that Obama does not know how to connect with working class whites. The most interesting thing if you look at past elections is that before Obama burst onto the national scene in this presidential election he was not good at connecting with working class blacks either. His base has always been the more educated and the very young. For someone who has worked as a community organizer come election time he has never been able to connect with working class voters, neither white nor black.
Communist muslim atheist, not sure where the communist atheist part comes from but the muslim part is racism. As well as the sex ed ad that played on racist fears. So yes, racism plays some effect on this election. But by far the problem is not the color of the candidate but the candidate himself.
September 18, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The majority of your argument was effectively rebutted by wberger001 below. Therefore, I'll only comment on the overall legitimacy of your post.
You seem to think I identified the concerns in the lone paragraph you quoted as being racist in nature. That's patently absurd. I could have written, "Kerry has to convince over 100 million voters that he's not an elitist, windsurfing, flip-flopping, medal-thieving, battle-ducking, vet-exploiting kept man-cum-windbag." It would have illustrated the same thing as the paragraph you wrote.
This blog is entirely about race, racism and how it may affect Whites, Blacks and this election. Somehow, in a McCain-esque mental contortion worthy of a lifetime Sedona barbecue pass, you intentionally misrepresented what I wrote as somehow dismissing any criticism of Obama with the racism card.
That is intellectually dishonest to an extent that now causes me to permanently dismiss you as a serious commenter. Please feel free to ignore my posts henceforth; we'll both be happier. Vaya con dios.
September 18, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess the people who he helped in the south side of Chicago either weren't working class (because they were out of work?) or didn't connect with the young guy who came in and helped them organize and spent years working with them. I guess if he just can't connect with anyone but the elites, then these were the out of work elites.
While it may be true that his "base" is not strong among the working class whites, he has over 90% of blacks behind him, so that part of your argument doesn't appear to hold water. As for the other part, it seems to me that he has a hard time connecting with low information voters who get only sound bites, believe negative attack ads, succumb to push polls, can't tell fact from fiction in various viral emails, listen to right wing radio and watch MSM bullshit. In that sense, nobody who isn't looking elsewhere or thinking for themselves or having someone refocus their attention can connect the dots all that well against the Rove/faux evangelical/right wing machines that are lined up against him.
So, OceanKat, I'll be the first to admit that Obama is flawed. Well, the second, because he admits it all the time. But are you, then, for McCain? Is McCain somehow better when he has lied, flopped and dishonored himself, chosen a totally unqualified, ignorant zealot as a running mate and can hardly keep any facts straight half the time? Is that your candidate?
Because, I'll be right with you in admitting that Obama has hurdles to overcome - racial and otherwise. And some of your points are true, but my response is, so what? In concentrating only on these possible non-racially motivated problems that you assert make him unelectable, you ignore his brilliance and decency and his calmness and also his strength. You ignore the totality of the man and dismiss him as too flawed to win against anyone but a pathetic old man in a time when all the cards should be in his favor.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll say that you are trying to put forth some arguments about Obama's vulnerabilities as a candidate, and in that I have no problem. But what constructive purpose do your arguments serve?
I can tell you this. I will take Obama, warts and all, over McCain or any Republican I've seen lately. I listened to him on the economy, and he makes sense. He leads. He is strong and informed. McCain can't even figure out which position to take, and when he seems finally to find something to say, he really has no solutions.
I've seen how Obama can work with people around the world, and that's nothing trivial. We need a leader who can really lead, at home and abroad.
I've seen how Obama can inspire the young people of this country, and that's not trivial because they are the future.
I've seen how Obama was really among the very few who fully understood what the situation in Iraq would be - before we went in and fucked it up, destabilized it and wasted all these billions.
He has shown prescience and wisdom and intelligence and all the qualities these Republicans seem so deficient in.
So what's your point? That he has flaws? That there are issues in this race that threaten his victory. Well, duh. We know that. What I'm interested in is how to help him win. His flaws are not news to me or anyone else around here as far as I know.
But he also has strengths - remarkable strengths, and it is those very strengths that have put him in a position to break barriers and stereotypes and all the negativity thrown at him, and actually become president. There are many forces fighting him, not the least of which is the determination of the Republican Party to suppress and taint the vote itself - not, obviously, for the first time. But he can win. And that, in itself, is remarkable.
Boyd's blog is something that I completely respect. Your comment within it is something else. I am having a hard time getting a clear understanding of its purpose.
September 19, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be helpful if you took the time to pay attention to what I write if you're going to respond. Its really a waste of time for my to correct obvious misquotes.
You post, "you assert make him unelectable." I have never said any such thing. I have no idea who will win this election. I think at this point it all hangs on the debates, or some very damaging gaff by either side.
You posted, "or didn't connect with the young guy who came in and helped them organize." I posted, "His base has always been the more educated and the very young." So clearly we agree that he connects very well with young voters.
You post, "he has over 90% of blacks behind him, so that part of your argument doesn't appear to hold water." My post, "if you look at past elections is that before Obama burst onto the national scene in this presidential election he was not good at connecting with working class blacks either." Its quite clear that in this national election he has 90% of the black electorate voting for him, but if you look at previous elections that wasn't the case.
Obama has long acknowledged his weakness among the working class. That's why when he used his power as a state legislator he used redistricting to reduce his vulnerabilities, mainly blue collar workers including black blue collar workers, and accentuate his strengths, young white professionals.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=11
Obama’s new district was wealthier, whiter, more Jewish, less blue-collar, and better educated. It also included one of the highest concentrations of Republicans in Chicago.
“It was a radical change,” Corrigan said. The new district was a natural fit for the candidate that Obama was in the process of becoming. “He saw that when we were doing fund-raisers in the Rush campaign his appeal to, quite frankly, young white professionals was dramatic.”
As for his work as a community organizer Obama has admitted his understanding was only theoretical and that he was not very successful.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=3
“When I started organizing, I understood the idea of social change in a very abstract way,” Obama told me last year. “It was to some extent informed by my years in Indonesia, seeing extreme poverty and disparities of wealth and understanding sort of in a dim way that life wasn’t fair and government had something to do with it. I understood the role that issues like race played and took inspiration from the civil-rights movement and what the student sit-ins had accomplished and the freedom rides.
So I understood these things in the abstract. When I went to Chicago, it was the first time that I had the opportunity to test out my ideas. And for the most part I would say I wasn’t wildly successful. The victories that we achieved were extraordinarily modest"
Obama has no trouble at all connecting with low information voters. Let's be realistic here. Many of all the candidates voters are low information voters, Obama's, McCain's, and Hillary's. When voters get all their information from sound bytes and the MSM and make an intuitive gut check choice you agree with, that's fine. But when they make an intuitive gut check choice you disagree with they're what, stupid?
Funny you ask me what's my point when no one seems to ask that question of most of the other posters here. The point of almost half the posts here is to say, rah rah Obama, I like him. The point of most of the other half is to say, McCain sucks. My point is to say I disagree. I think my disagreement is considerably more substantial than a fair percentage of the posts you don't question. I also have a bit of a problem with posts that frame this discussion in terms of primarily racist issues and attempt to spin non racial based issues into a racial context.
I'm very clear that most of the poster's goal is to help Obama win. I know that most here wish that this echo chamber was 100% focused on that goal and most don't care how it happens. Well unfortunately for you its only 98%. Hey, if you don't like it you can complain to josh that there's a person here who doesn't always say nice things about Obama and doesn't always say nasty things about McCain. Or you can go to Kos where the echo chamber is absolute and no one would ever cloud your vision with a dissenting view.
September 19, 2008 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very little of what you say is logical or rational or fact based, so we will call you out on your prejudiced and jaundiced view of America.
Toss tomatoes from the cheap seats if you like, but don't expect we will let that shit go by without comment this year. This is the same reason Kerry lost. The same reason 7 of the last 10 races were lost by the left. No democratic presidential candidate is ever perfect enough for some democrats, but this year those wet blankets are off-set by new voters and those skewing to the right of the spectrum.
Obama will get elected despite "democrats" such as you who have nothing but lies and innuendo and talking points to contribute to the discussion.
September 19, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
OceanKat,
Your post is something that stirred up something in me. Not because it wasn't at times true, but because there seemed (to me) to be a spirit of argument in it that wasn't very helpful. But I will put that aside. I do appreciate other sides of the story, and some of what you said is worthy of consideration. However, your rebuttal to me is somewhat questionable. When I said that a young guy came in to help people out of work in Chicago, you replied that it meant that he was working with young people, but you know perfectly well he was working out people who were out of work - workers and people in communities hit by job loss - of all ages. So that part of my argument is still true, and you somehow, for some reasons, recast it to make your point.
In your original post you said, "Obama is a flawed candidate in so many ways that are not connected to racism. If McCain wasn't so flawed and the last 8 years of republican governance so discredited Obama would not stand a chance at getting elected."
Your rebuttal was, "You post, 'you assert make him unelectable.' I have never said any such thing. I have no idea who will win this election. I think at this point it all hangs on the debates, or some very damaging gaff by either side.
I think you said very clearly that he would be unelectable outside these circumstances, which, if you check my post, was what I said.
Other than that, I am happy to agree to agree at times and disagree at others.
September 19, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Raider, I may have misconstrued some of your arguments but it was not deliberate for the purpose of making some point. I'll admit to perhaps a little over sensitivity to attacks and a tendency to unfurl my claws at the slightest sign. I am probably the only person still posting here who is undecided as to what I'm going to do with my vote this Nov so I definitely harden my skin every time I post in preparation for the responses.
September 19, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Reed's blog is the honest, non-hostile discussion -- and exploration -- on race we need.
Interesting how the least racist among us are most anxious to shut it down.
September 19, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"White hating? I don't thing the vast majority of of voters think Obama is white hating. But people do wonder how he could spend 20 years in a church listening to the sermons of Rev Wright. Obama offered this man to the american people as his mentor and spiritual guide, in essence as a character reference on his resume. Its a rather damaging association."
It's only damaging to those who falsely believe stating the negative facts of our history TRUTHFULLY is "racist".
Why do you so fear those facts expressed unvarnishedly that you must attack the messenger? Because HE is "racist"?
September 19, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kinda like we were all taught that the Pilgrims were nice to those evil, violent indians who forced us to fight them back?
September 20, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I enjoyed this post. Thanks for sharing your experience.
I hope it makes the rec list so that more people can read/comment on it.
September 18, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
OceanKat,
Your post has so much distortions/distractions and half truths to make it unreadable and part of the "talking points". I get that most people don't take the time to educate themselves on the issues... I get that most folks work hard, get home and if they have time for just a few minutes of TV before they are off to bed and ready to "lather, rinse and repeat".
Your service argument is full of crap... do you know how many others served and were POW's and in some instances endured worse treatment as they were not son's of Admirals... but I think McCain's doing a great job of erasing any advantage this might give him by bringing this up at every opportunity...
I would argue Obama's service to his community is just as important a sacrifice as he went to work in the inner city working for those "work class voters" you say he cannot "connect with".
Ask the people of Iowa if Obama has a problem connecting with "working class" americans. Remember, the basis for this narrative are polls that up until this moment contradict themselves daily.
It's clear you have never been to a rally or watched people of all backgrounds reach out to him. It's also clear you know nothing of the 20 years of sermons preached by Rev. Wright.
You can take a man's entire career and reduce this to one or two 10 second soundbites and can say with a straight face this is the measure of the man. That takes arrogance to new heights...
Obama is clearly a christian who takes his faith seriously which is common for those who discover faith later in life versus being raised with a particular religion. But Christian or Muslim you once again assume a negative where none exists.
To the Muslim American who see's attitudes towards their religion fashioned by a culture of exclusion you seem not to understand where you think you see an insult your really see an opportunity.
One last thing... The Obama Campaign is about the relationships of people who have been told they can change their world but they have to take responsibility for the change.
It's the blog writers or the phone bankers or the Iraqi vet who decides to run for congress because they believe they can make a difference. It's millions of people who suddenly realize the power exists for those who are willing to work together to achieve a common shared purpose...
Improving the world around them. And suddenly you find yourself borrowing a bit from this person or advice from that person or better yet, an idea that can launch a movement.
We are a racist country... probably needed to be to get where we are today... That does not mean this defines our country going forward and I believe a large measure of the support for this campaign is a result of the need to adapt to the changes not just in the world but the changes here in the US.
So we have a choice and I agree it could not be clearer...
September 18, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how you have addressed anything I've written. I'm pretty confident that I've looked at the issues and the biography of all the candidates and can defend my views. Your insults are wasted on me as I don't care what your personal opinion of me is.
No one has ever claimed that McCain was the only hero to come through the Vietnam war. Of course there were others. I've seen no one objective from either the right or the left who has ever suggested that McCain got special treatment because he was the son of and admiral. By far the consensus is that his treatment was worse in the effort to force him to accept early release as a propaganda coup for the enemy.
The value of McCain's service and Obama's service is certainly debatable. I would suggest that the choice to serve one's country by risking one's life is a weightier choice entailing greater sacrifice than the choice to serve one's country by forgoing the financial rewards commensurate with a degree from Columbia. Of course you may disagree but I don't think that disagreement could be attributed to racism.
The exit polling data is not changing day by day. In state after state it shows the same picture. Obama lost the working class vote and won the college educated vote. While future polling data fluctuates it does not contradict the exit polls. To say that Obama is losing the working class is not saying he gets 0% support from them. Just as saying he is winning the college educated vote is not saying he gets 100% support from those with a college education. But its very clear that he lost working class voters by significant margins in virtually all states in the primaries and current polling makes the same prediction for the GE.
Nothing is clear about your statements about Rev Wright except that you didn't say anything except to claim I lack knowledge. If you have anything to say on the subject I'm happy to have that debate. I'm confident I have adequate knowledge to discuss it.
Every post here on all the candidates takes their life and reduces it to sound bytes. How could it be otherwise in a short 3 or four paragraph post. Your problem is not that this is too short a synopsis but that its a negative synopsis. 98% of the posts here reduce Obama's life to a few positive sound bytes. I realize that this echo chamber would like those positive sound bytes to be 100%. But you see, I have a dissenting view and sufficient facts to back it up. I'm more than happy to take any of these issues and expand it into something much more than sound bytes any time you like. I'm more than happy to back up my views from respectable sources like the NY times Washington Post or the New yorker.
September 19, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quote a single exit poll from the primary elections or shut the hell up. You are all bluster and no substance. You quote non-exist polls and then use them to justify your opinions. The same technique the media uses.
Obama won as much as 65 or 70% of the vote in some fairly red states. That is sure to include voters from across the spectrum. Maybe even a few white, working class voters. He lost a couple of states by a few percentage points at the very end of the primary, but the differences in demographics for his voters are still all over the map.
Post links to your supposed polls and give real numbers to your rhetoric. Otherwise it is an opinion based in nothing and not supported by even the final numbers of votes let alone some unknown poll.
Your analysis is illogical, cynical and sophomoric, though I know you don't care about opinions. (Another "fact" belied by how much time you take to respond to those opinions.)
September 19, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shut the hell up? Goddamn, you're an asshole, Jason.
September 21, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
My question for you is simple: Do you really think that Obama is not for policies that would improve the lot of working and middle class Americans? Conversely, do you truly believe John McCain is for policies that would improve the lot of working and middle class Americans? I can't imagine any person not absolutely deluded by right-wing (and recently dramatically discredited) economic orthodoxy could answer no to the 1st or yes to the 2nd. Indeed, a majority of Americans have indicated in poll after poll that they believe Obama to be the candidate with policies that will benefit those who have not made out like bandits during the Bush years.
If all this is the case, I can only conclude that you're complaint is mostly about proving that you're not a racist just because you don't like Obama. Mmmmkay, fine. Boyd's post didn't imply that everyone who dislikes Obama is a racist, he's talking specifically about the people who don't like Obama because they are uncomfortable with his color. Maybe you're not one of these people and you dislike him for perfectly race-neutral reasons. Bully for you.
My question is, are you really for the working class that you're so down on Obama for not "connecting" with? If so, then whether you think Obama is a perfect man or a perfect candidate really should have little to do with your vote because the other guy is guaranteed to run all the people who've worked all their lives and have not met the 5 million dollar threshold, further up the creek than they already are.
Your entitled to your bitterness that Obama is the Democratic nominee. As you have asserted many times, it is your right to dissent. But let's not pretend it's really about whom you think would better serve the part of the country that you repeatedly highlight in your holier-than-thou posts.
I mean, you don't have to be a racist to be a hater. And while there is no evidence at all that you are the former, there's a heap, just in this thread, that points to latter being pretty close to accurate.
September 19, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"No one has ever claimed that McCain was the only hero to come through the Vietnam war."
There were few, if any, actual US heroes "to come through the Vietnam war".
1. US involvement in Vietnam was ILLEGAL. one does not get nobility, or heroism, or truth, out of illegality and lies.
2. No one who willingly advanced that illegality was on the side of right. That being basic, none of such were heroes.
"Of course there were others."
See above.
"I've seen no one objective from either the right or the left who has ever suggested that McCain got special treatment because he was the son of and admiral."
McCain himself said it. He also admitted that he also got special treatment because he CONFESSED to being a war criminal.
If you look at his actual actions -- bombing civilian targets, which is a war crime -- he confessed to the truth. Commiting war crimes does not a "hero" make.
"By far the consensus is that his treatment was worse in the effort to force him to accept early release as a propaganda coup for the enemy."
By far the consensus of those who were THERE, including McSame himself, his treatment was NOT worse, for the two reasons cited.
September 19, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW... great post Boyd. (rec'd).
September 18, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this post. The 'national dialog on race' that is part of the undertone of this election isn't pretty, but it does have some beautiful, honest moments like this one you've authored.
To me one of the most striking moments in the long campaign came when people reacted to Senator Obama calling his grandmother 'a typical white person'. Clearly, he meant no disrespect or insult but many claimed that 'he threw his grandmother under the bus'. There is a pathology of guilt and self-hatred there that sets in front of us a challenge.
I am also a 'typical white person'; I grew up in a segregated neighborhood and went to a segregated high school.
What this campaign offers us is a chance to step beyond pathology and make history. I am reminded of DuBois's writing in Black Reconstruction about the choice presented to poor whites in the South following the Civil War: ally with the largely black reconstruction governments that served their real interests with reforms like universal education or with the Klan and their promise of the illusion of superiority and common cause with the old oligarchy. We face a similar choice in this election. I see people I canvass struggling with it, but the choice is increasingly stark and clear.
September 19, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Clearly"?
September 19, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boyd,
I enjoyed your post and I was sure that other readers would also. It's baffling how negative some people have been towards your very personal and sincere post.
Keep up the good work.
September 19, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish it were baffling as to "reason".
September 19, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Boyd. Well, I don't claim to have much knowledge of these racial issues. You know, up here in that snowy country to your North, the burning issues tend to be more along the lines of woolen sweaters vs wood stoves to get you through Winter... caribou vs Spam as the ideal feed for the sled-dogs... ways to keep the Mounties off your trail.... and "them." "Them," of course, being our polite term for "The French."
You Americans may think calling South Carolina for Obama is tough. Well, all I can say is just try convincing some Quebecois dude in Chicoutimi not to start up his own country. In FRENCH. Without him crippling himself, laughing at your accent. And the political option you're selling him on is to stay in a country with 4 outdoor cafes (open for 6 weeks annually), 23 million plaid shirted countrymen, and... ummmm.... Shania Twain? William Shatner? Maudite chalice, those guys are a tough sell. Anyway.
Where was I? Ok, I gotta say I have no problems with African Americans. Well, no more than I have problems with Americans in general. Which is perhaps not the most politic thing for me to go into here. But I WILL say I have a small problem with that other thing you mentioned.
Chess.
Now Chess Players.... THEM bastards.... I DON'T trust. All that thinking 3 moves ahead business. Weird little secret coded languages. And Russians everywhere. What's with that? Plus, chess dudes do that "play 94 other guys at the same time" thing happening. I mean... WTF? how are outsiders supposed to take THAT? Look. If you did that in the NFL, you'd get a penalty for Taunting, right? But noooo. In Chess, it's like, here I am, Mr VERY Tall Foreheaded Chess Dude, hands in my pockets, and I'm gonna whip 94 butts.. at the same time. I don't care what you call it, that's just not polite.
In sum. French bad. Chess players worse. I hope this Northern perspective helps.
BTW. Nice piece. It's just hard not to hurl abuse at a self-admitted chess player. ;-)
September 19, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You call THAT "hurl[ing] abuse"? I've taught fourth graders with more bang than that zip-gun you're packing, you freaking Canuck amateur. Canada's like a loft apartment above a really great party, eh? :-D
Glad you liked the piece. I'd never have strung all those disjointed thoughts together except for Howard1's post. It's funny where the inspiration comes from sometimes.
September 19, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
True story. Relevant to St Louis. I grew up in a tiny village in NS. 22 kids, 16 of 'em boys. Big boys though. 6'3", 6' 5", 6' 7", 6' 8", 6' 9." I was 6'... the smallest. And we lived to play ball. (Not hockey, funny enough - though I picked that up later. But baseball.) Seven of us became pitchers. One catcher. (Yeah, guess who.) And it was heat, baby, heat. Just these big old farmboys rearin' back, and throwing smoke. 90 mph+. These guys weren't kidding.
And our hero? Unanimously, and without question - Bob Gibson. I saw him pitch on TV when I was a kid, '66, and that was that - Cards fan for life. HE was our role model. He'd glare like hell. Throw inside as often as he felt like it. Fearless. And above all, he'd throw smoke. That one year, he had a 1.12 ERA. And years later, after we'd really drop a guy with a pitch in the ribs, or blow it past him, we'd literally point & shout "one-TWELVE, baby!"
Not Jackie Robinson, or MLKing, or Ali... for us, to be black in America meant... Bob Gibson. And yeah, we were racist and prejudiced as hell. But one by one, people like Robinson and King and Ali and... Bob Gibson... produced their changes. So, keep doing what you're doing. Just remember... one pitch at a time. One pitch at a time.
And every now and then, when you meet a real asshole, don't be shy. Dust him off. Gibson would've.
September 19, 2008 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
1.12 ERA for a year - phenomenal.
And could hit grand slams.
Unfortunately he ran into Mickey Lolich in '68 (who added his own home run) or he would have been more famous (topping off '64 & '67). What a Series.
Lessee, who else - Curt Flood, Lou Brock (kind of a jerk it seems, unlike Gibson, but what a player), Orlando Cepeda, Julian Javier. Later Richie Allen started to bring them back, but it was short-lived (they got rid of him, Tim McCarver & then Steve Carlton)
September 19, 2008 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't even a twinkle in Mom's eye in the '68 Series. But I've read and seen a lot of it. And I believe the city of Detroit needed that win, still reeling from that summer's riots and all. (Besides, I got to watch the Tigers fumble away the '06 Series to the Cards.) Whenever I wear my #45 jersey, I just FEEL more ornery...which is why I don't wear it to work. :-)
The real tragedy of Gibson is that he felt compelled to avoid the media, because they would frequently use slang to report his comments. Gibson's very articulate - and he's one of thv very few '60s Cardinals I've been fortunate enough to meet.
One of my district's administrators back home is related to Ted Savage, and I got to meet Gibson while at Savage's house. He seemed like he could still brush a hitter back, even in '88. Just totally intimidating.
September 19, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
1955. Brooklyn Dodgers finally beat the uptown Yankees. More than baseball.
September 19, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen plenty of tape of Gibson pitching. Man, even guys like Greenberg and Aaron wouldn't dig in too much against Gibby.
1.12 is one of those unique baseball numbers that just isn't going anywhere. It - like its creator - just stands there, glaring at you, daring you to even approach it.
September 19, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe getting off the "you're more racist than I am" would be a good start in closing the divide that our government/politicians have been so efficient in creating (past and present). The "all white people are racist" anecdote doesn't help either and it isn't exactly a rallying call to bridge the gap, is it? Personally, I'm sick of hearing about it.
I'm white. I'm voting for Obama, volunteering for Obama, fighting the good fight on his behalf... because he is intelligent and displays empathy, sincerity, class, and appears honestly to believe that he can create a better nation though a common sense approach to policy. I believe him and that's that.
I'm sure there are, shockingly, still racists out there, but to call all whites racist is in itself a racist statment. Move on already.
September 19, 2008 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you missed the point of this blog - that ALL people of any demographic are never one way or the other.
He said is initial instinct was to think they were playing him for a fool but came to believe otherwise. It was a tale of a journey toward understanding an essential truth. That it had to start with misunderstanding before leading to an understanding apparently threw you off. Or you didn't read the whole thing.
I know, it was long and had some big words.
September 19, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really hope the post you entered after mine (kfreed) was not directed at me, as I was answering the first response posted by UrbanRevolution:
"Okay Reed: I didn't read all of your blog past your personal story. But I did read enough. Here are the FACTS:
1. All white people are racists, STOP - DON'T GET MAD - this is according to Tim Wise, and I happen to believe him."
Follow the thread, will ya?
September 19, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hit reply and then click the little box (like you did to my comment) so we know what you are replying to instead of seeing it down stream as if replying to the blog and not a comment to the blog. It's not the best system, but it is pretty straight forward.
September 19, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The value of McCain's service and Obama's service is certainly debatable. I would suggest that the choice to serve one's country by risking one's life is a weightier choice entailing greater sacrifice than the choice to serve one's country by forgoing the financial rewards commensurate with a degree from Columbia. Of course you may disagree but I don't think that disagreement could be attributed to racism."
Different times/different choices: So essentially anyone who has ever been a POW can become President on that so-called merit alone? Choosing to educate onself in a time of peace (and being mightily conversant in constitutional law) somehow doesn't stack up to being shot down while bombing civilians?
The "patriot" card has been sorely overplayed and we're not interested anymore. Defending the constitution is patriotic. Flaunting the rule of law and waging war in Iraq based on lies/for profit isn't, nor is the dismantling of the working class, the economy, and our first amendment rights through the auspices of "homeland security" (all of which McCain is A-okay with).
I wouldn't say that your opinion is racist, just not steeped too deeply in reality.
September 19, 2008 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
So essentially anyone who has ever been a POW can become President on that so-called merit alone?
I wouldn't say that your opinion is racist, just not steeped too deeply in reality.
---------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately it is your knowledge that is not steeped too deeply in reality. Its truly amazing to me how many people don't know the basic facts about both of these candidates.
McCain is not considered a hero because he was a POW in Vietnam. When it was discovered that McCain was the son of an admiral he was offered early release. To accept was against the military code of honor in that POW's were to be released first in, first out. McCain knew that if he accepted it would be used to demoralize the other POW's and that it would be used by the enemy as propaganda.
He refused to accept early release and was tortured more brutally in an attempt to convince him to accept. McCain is not the only one offered early release nor is he the only one who refused to accept. There were others who both upheld the code and spent several more years as POW's and others who rejected it and obtained early release.
The meaning of McCain's choice, what it says about his character or his qualifications for president is certainly debatable. Its not my contention that this alone qualifies him to be president. But before it can be debated one must know enough of his biography to know he had a choice and he chose to sacrifice himself and endure more torture in defense of his comrades rather than to spare himself at the expense of his comrades.
September 19, 2008 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
September 19, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, McSame is a nice guy. Voted against the GI Bill, in "war time," because it would have been too generous to his lessers.
September 19, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a valid point for those who feel comfortable psychoanalyzing McCain. Perhaps he only cared about the opinion of his father and grandfather and didn't give a damn about his fellow POW's when he chose to endure more torture for several more years. Its not possible for me to get into his head enough to make such judgments.
September 19, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue is not whether Boyd looked out of place - he did. He's in one of the most exclusive communities in the country, and doesn't fit the appearance of 99.9% of the people there. Likewise, a well dressed white kid there at 4am would be out of place, or one at noon with long hair wearing overalls. (I did that in Ladue once, quite some looks, eh?)
We all work with patterns and recognize events that don't fit the patterns. The issue is more how it's dealt with. That the guard didn't let Boyd speak, had the arrogance of power to shove him through the door is the real tip. If it had been 4am, the guard might have felt threatened and nervous, but here was just a daytime encounter with no worries. And the guard got nasty. Unnecessarily, spitefully.
Now, I don't understand what Boyd's experiences in East St. Louis or in Ladue have to do with Obama's experiences this campaign. Obama hasn't suffered what Boyd suffered this campaign. Obama is welcome with open arms most places, and if there are sleights, well, he knows he's on top. He's a Harvard Law grad, a Senator, a leading contender in his party. And Obama went to one of those cherry schools like in Ladue, though one with more racial diversity. So I can never figure out why I should map someone like Boyd's experience onto Obama just like why would someone map Paris Hilton's experiences on me. See, I can see past skin color.
September 19, 2008 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You shouldn't map my experiences to Obama's. That's because I don't do that either.
Ironically, some people miss the whole point of the guard story. It actually helped me get past my own ingrained ideas about race, and begin to understand how easy it is to go from prejudice to flat-out racism. You see, ESL was about 99.8% Black at the time I lived there, and the percentage hasn't moved down a whole lot. So, in the world I grew up in, it was natural to be distrustful of other people.
The incident at Ladue - and the way people responded - did two things for me. The first, and immediate, consequence was to see that people's behavior is ultimately the only fair way to judge them, which I pointed out in the blog. The second, and longer-term, consequence was that I began to differentiate between racism/racists and people who were merely prejudiced. That differentiation is essential, and it helps a great deal to recognize the difference - especially when doing GOTV in typically hostile areas.
September 19, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, let's cut the crap. Obama didn't face anything like Jackie Robinson or any typical Negro league player or jazz musician or whatever. Plain and simple. Your experience in Ladue was probably as bad as Obama ever had it. And I'm just not going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this. He's post racial, he had a white mother and white grandparents (including a VP of a bank) and an Indonesian oil manager father with his 4 years of in Jakarta. Yeah, I'm sure something was annoying, but he could always walk away - he had somewhere to go. You didn't.
September 19, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You clearly don't know a whole lot about even present-day Harvard as concerns not only racism but also sexism.
Obama and the Harvard L. Rev. instance says a great deal more about him as to character and intelligence than does the fact that he was at Harvard.
September 19, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the fuck? He was voted president of the Law Review. Is that such terrible discrimination to suffer? Jackie Robinson was spit on, cursed, spiked with those good metal cleats, thrown out of restaurants, and so on.
September 19, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most everyone has options. I could have chosen to quit playing chess, and stayed in my hometown after college. I'd probably have gotten a good job, maybe teaching in District 189. I could have chosen to stay there for the rest of my life.
I could have chosen to walk away from volunteer work - after all, canvassing is physical, tough work, and you get a lot of doors slammed in your face in the wrong neighborhoods. I could still walk away, if I wanted to.
I CHOOSE not to, even though it's harder. I don't believe in victimhood. Life is about getting up more than you get knocked down.
Do you really think Obama hasn't encountered hatred on the trail? You think he campaigned in southern Indiana, central Missouri, West Virginia, southern Ohio, and central Pennsylvania, and never once dealt with epithets and hate speech? And do you really think that is so easily brushed off by anyone?
How many Obama campaign offices have been vandalized? What makes you think he DOESN'T feel that? Are you THAT inoculated to the uglier undertones of this election?
You don't think it bothers him to see himself and his wife smeared in the press and on TV? To see his fatherhood trashed by an ad that says he'd actually approve teaching sex-ed to kindergarterners - a bill that was under discussion in Illinois before either of his own daughters were in kindergarten?
I identify with him - and Jackie - because they made the CHOICE to stick with tough situations. They made the call - as I had to - to stand up to anger, hatred and misunderstanding. To be BIGGER than the meanness they faced. Robinson beat his back with a bat, ball and glove. Obama's beating his back with a campaign. I'm beating mine back with shoe leather and words.
Don't misunderstand me. I am NOT on their level. There's no way I could do what Robinson did, or what Obama is doing. But I drew inspiration from people like Jackie Robinson and John Lewis in high school - and I draw it now from Barack Obama. To compare me to any of them is insulting - to them.
There's a book you should read, if you haven't already: "I Choose To Stay", by Salome Thomas-EL. It's people like Thomas-EL...and Robinson...and Obama...and Lewis...who make me think everything is possible, if you keep your head up and work against the hits. If you can't see that, then you really have no frame of reference for me at all, and we should just leave it at that.
Think of it this way. I feel an obligation to raise my small voice and say what I think needs to be said. I have the courage to do that, thanks to the abolitionists and people like Frederick Douglass and W.E.B DuBois. I have the right to do that, thanks to the civil rights groups and leaders of my mother's time. I have the obligation to do that because of what my son is to me and what my duty is to him - to pass on a world that is, in some meaningful way, better than how I entered it.
September 19, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I simply don't think his hurdles are nearly as great as Jackie Robinson's. Sure, he could give up, as anyone who tries to do something better could. But no, he's not facing down Bull Conner and his police dogs and water cannons on the way to Birmingham. He never faced a truncheon. And I think it's disrespectful to the people who did the heavy lifting and who perservered in much worse times to just automatically compare him with them.
September 19, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
James Baldwin, who had the audacity to be black and write a book about homosexuality in the 50's. Not exactly setting himself up for most welcome man in the neighborhood.
Name a policy that Obama has that's controversial? Is life so tough for this man just be being black? Boyd was a visitor to that Ladue school - Obama would have been a student had he lived in St. Louis (or one close to it). Yeah, Boyd had choices, but likely much worse ones than Obama did. White VP grandma coming to bail you out for a misunderstanding is a lot different than black momma from East St. Louis. Though I will easily admit that speaking up as a black person quite often carries much more risk than speaking up as a white. (Presuming we're not talking about a black church on Sunday ;-)
September 19, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saying, "Obama > Reed" and "Robinson > Reed" and "Lewis > Reed" is one thing. That's what I've said, and I stand by it.
Saying, "Obama = Robinson", "Lewis = Robinson", or "Obama = Lewis" is another thing entirely. I do not make such a claim, nor am I smart enough to do so. Perhaps you are. If so, bully for you. But that's not what I said or implied.
Again, I don't try to rank those three pioneers. They just happen to be people I find inspiring. I say they all have experienced some degree of physical danger, though I think their challenges can't be measured by that standard alone. True, one could argue that Obama's is less than the others - but then again, he's had near-Presidential levels of security this entire year, even during the early primaries. That alone should indicate what he faces in terms of physical risk.
September 19, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I'm decisive, and will rank them. Robinson > Obama. Thurgood Marshall > Obama. MLK > Obama. Miles Davis > Obama. James Baldwin > Obama. Oprah Winfrey > Obama. Sojourner Truth ?=? Oprah - i.e. there I'd have to know more about the two to compare.
September 19, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero says: "And I think it's disrespectful to the people who did the heavy lifting and who perservered in much worse times to just automatically compare him with them ... Robinson > Obama. Thurgood Marshall > Obama. MLK > Obama. Miles Davis > Obama. James Baldwin > Obama. Oprah Winfrey > Obama"
Desidero,
Are you serious? You're trying to marginalize the experience of racism because of what you experienced when you had long hair? That doesn't make what happened to you any less wrong or mean that racism or sexism should just be tolerated because it's accepted. How about the people of color who don't have the option of just cutting their hair short? How pretentious of it that you use your "long hair" experience to assume you have any idea what racism is like on the receiving end, in this case, with Mr Reed who incidentally, didn't have long hair, and was dressed appropriately.
I think it's downright idiotic (as it requires some knowledge to be disrespectful) that you appear incapable of recognizing that Reed only brings up the relevancy of barrier breaking people of the past insomuch that Obama is also a person of color attempting to break the color barrier, with each having their own unique set of circumstances with regards to discrimination. THAT IS ALL!!! He is not trying to equivocate. That is all you. Also, Obama's story has NOT BEEN FULLY WRITTEN YET, so your attempt to assign a greater than or less than sign to each for comparison is nothing short of ridiculous.
But more importantly, and a point to which you remain is incalcitrantly oblivious despite repeated attempts to spell it out for you, Mr Reed's personal anecdote was not used to try to compare anything between Obama and himself but was PART OF A MUCH BIGGER POINT you asinine airhead. In Mr Reed's case he was BEING THE MUCH BIGGER MAN, by being able to look past the discrimination he experienced from one person in order NOT to use it as the means to make wrong generalizations and cast stereotypes of whites as a whole where it would be easy for those of lesser temperament to do.
You claim "Your (Reed's) experience in Ladue was probably as bad as Obama ever had it. And I'm just not going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this." only reveals that you don't know near as much about Obama than you would like to believe. Let's examine what happened to Mr Reed. He was wrongly assumed by ONE individual to be a criminal and accused of trespassing based on the color of his skin. If you had read Obama's autobiography, you would be aware of specific instances where he conveys experiences of racial discrimination that are not part of the day to day media narrative biography of his life, and for someone as uninformed as yourself to claim something that happened to Mr Reed (in 1992) when Obama is older an has been around longer is just obnoxious arrogance on your part.
As an Asian American that has experienced racial discrimination from both sides of the isle, it would be easy for me to write off your naivety as due to your being white. But to excuse your ignorance as such would wrongly stereotype most Caucasians that are perfectly capable of reading Boyd Reed's article and understanding his much larger message.
September 19, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody can tell me what awful racism Obama has suffered, so I'm simply not assuming he suffered that much racism. If you can point me to a fact, I'll worry about it. Do you for a second believe Oprah's kids have suffered the racism she suffered? A billion in the bank account and living in the right neighborhoods can equalize quite a lot. So stop assuming and look for facts.
September 20, 2008 5:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Des, you don't think Barack ever had an experience like Boyd's?
September 19, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't we all had an experience like Boyd's? I have.
September 19, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's difficult to have an experience such as Mr. Reed's, as a minority, if one is not a minority.
And it's farfetched to assert otherwise in effort to assert a false equivalency.
September 19, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Difficult? Pulled over just because of the length of my hair - "what'd I do?" "we had a report, now get out of here". Right. Thanks, John Law. Had a cop run into me one time, knock out a light. He "let me go without citing me for destruction of state property". Lessee, a friend who almost got raped, slid out of her jacket and ran down the street with no one stopping for her. What did the police say? "What were you wearing? Why were you walking at night?" Took them 45 minutes to get around to look in the area where the guy was last seen. Prejudice and insult occur in a myriad of places. One thing I think people miss is that a lot of "racism" towards blacks is mixed with anti-immigrant feeling - such as when blacks moved to cities and from south to north. I.e. economic hatred/disturbance of the way things used to be/job displacement, rather than simply hating a color or nationality. What percent is what? Wouldn't dare to say. But anywhere people have power over another people, there are going to be these insulting acts like what happened to Boyd in Ladue. As I said, I wore dishevelled overalls there one time - if I hadn't been at someone's house, I'd likely have been escorted to the edge of the township. Not as bad as the reaction to Boyd, but certainly not welcoming.
September 19, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been pulled over five times - just since moving to Pennsylvania six years ago.
Not one ticket. Not one fault with my driving. No problem with the tags, tail lights, or anything else. Cops just decided to pull me over.
Three of these happened within five miles of my house.
Life's different if you're black in this country. That doesn't mean it should be. And it doesn't mean it should consume us. If I let it consume me, I wouldn't be able to try to change that reality for my kids.
Acknowledging that reality - and then working to overcome it through positive, forward-thinking action - is what I believe in doing. I refuse to live in the past. But, as Santayana so rightly noted, I'd be a fool to forget it entirely.
September 19, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had no problem with my car. They just wanted to check my driver's license. When I cut my hair, I got pulled over less. Funny that. I had long hair as a director of a US government organization - at customs they gave me shit because I had Bangkok in my passport. I tossed them my business card to let them know to get the fuck out of my face, still knowing that they won, that they had the power to be arrogant assholes, and that if I made too much a fuss I'd be strip-searched and maybe locked up for the night just because they can.
Oh, and somewhere along the way in this campaign we forgot about sexism and the continual discrimination women face if they won't go out with their fellow workers, and other unsavory choices and bad experiences they encounter. My little encounters pale.
September 19, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Des. Are you serious? You won't acknowledge that Blacks and Hispanics get stopped in the US for nothing. Come on.
September 19, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do acknowledge it. As do other people, though likely not as much.
But why do we have to act like Obama grew up in East St. Louis? There's a big difference between a poor kid in ESL and a bank VP's kid in Hawaii.
September 20, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Unfortunately it is your knowledge that is not steeped too deeply in reality. Its truly amazing to me how many people don't know the basic facts about both of these candidates.
McCain is not considered a hero because he was a POW in Vietnam. When it was discovered that McCain was the son of an admiral he was offered early release. To accept was against the military code of honor in that POW's were to be released first in, first out. McCain knew that if he accepted it would be used to demoralize the other POW's and that it would be used by the enemy as propaganda."
Actually, this isn't news to me.
NO POW would accept early realease... it is a pact between them and an integrated ethic as applied to notions of duty and honor.
This does not make McCain exceptional as a POW.
I happen to come from a military family and am still a part of one, so there won't be any preaching to me on this issue. I'm already quite aware.
This still doesn't qualify McCain over Obama for the Presidency. Obama has a far more upstanding character than does McCain (if that is where your argument lies) and the "I was a POW" recitation is wearing pretty thin already.
September 19, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
And P.S. this notion of "patriotism" as in "I'm more patriotic than you are" is the reason we are in the mess that we're in. The GOP (McCain included) has consistently suggested that anyone who didn't/doesn't swallow the Bush Doctrine... and everything other rotten polciy... mmm... might not be a patriot.
It's rather disgusting don't you think? To use love of country against American citizens to the extent that this so-called "patriotism" has allowed for the virtual shredding of our Constitution. Or haven't you been paying attention?
September 19, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post.
I'm half of an inter-racial couple. We grew up in NYC and had no thought about it. We lived in Germany and it wasn't a problem. Only when we moved to "liberal" Oregon did the problems begin. Yes, racism is real. To say that we don't take strong stands against it, especially when it's personal, would be an understatement.
Interesting for me always to hear about Jackie Robinson, a hero of my childhood. You can't measure the step forward America took when some whites started rooting for Jackie. Brooklyn is a tough place. And it was quite a thing to have Blacks and Whites in the same stands while Yankee Stadium remained pin-stripe white.
I went to summer camp with Jackie's kid in 1958. In those days it was rare to find a summer camp that Black kids could attend. But it was a progressive camp and the parents of the campers were from the Left.
In 1958 Jackie Robinson had become a Republican and was president of a corporation. But sending his kid to a Leftist interracial camp was apparently more important than politics.
When Jackie Robinson visited his kid on parent's day, I'm sure he was the only Republican who had ever set foot on that place. Jackie understood racism. But he saw politics in a complex light beyond dogma.
As we move into this century, the Left must be less dogmatic and reflexive in its political tactics about race. Jackie was a hero in 1950 to the Left. Clearly that was too small a political box for Jackie. He became an American Hero.
Were Jackie alive, I think he would vote for Obama. Not because of race, but because Obama is talking the real stuff of a post-racial world. Like Jackie, Obama is not pretending that racism isn't real. But like Jackie, he's ready to rathet down the argument and let his actions make the point.
This is a time for the Left to think new tactics. It's about looking for patches of common ground now. And making the intellectual
effort to think about new tactics, not repeat the easy stuff.
There are aspects of racism that will always be with us. There are instances that must be addressed. But as a political tactic now, it's a good time to hold one's tongue when possible in the political arena, and just change the conversation. And keep canvassing. Jackie kept quiet. That didn't mean he backed down.
September 19, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great comment and exactly right with regards to suggestions for the change in left-leaning strategies.
The reason Obama appeals to moderate republicans is his calm and intelligent way of disagreeing. He has also taken the best of all sides to craft solutions that are neither liberal nor conservative. Or, perhaps it is better to say they are both liberal and conservative.
I think he is the first modern politician to run for the true center and to see the barriers crumbling all around us. His prize for that vision is a governing majority that includes democrats, republicans and independents.
It's the main reason Barack will be a great president as well.
September 19, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the most impressive facts about Obama is his conscious intention and effort to include -- especially -- views that are opposed to his. So he can understand them. So he can include the good elements of them. So he can LEARN.
One cannot imagine a current-day Republican doing that.
September 19, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have first hand experience with the type of disconnect that you are describing and I have to agree with you. I'm of Irish & English heritage and my wife is Hispanic and we have a little girl whom we adopted from Colombia. When I am out alone with my daughter I see scrunched eyebrows and 2nd glances at the two of us when they realize that something doesn't match as I have very pail freckled skin and a red beard and my daughter is very tan with beautiful long black hair. So simply put, visually we don't "match".
In our sub-conscience, humans use our instincts of assessing risks constantly as we pass by other people. We do this by playing "the match game". Does this person look out of place here (i.e. to a police officer: does this black man driving a nice car appear suspicious?). It's simply how we are wired; but that doesn't excuse taking action on those stereotypes and assumptions alone.
Fortunately, after people look at my daughter and I with a puzzled expressions they typically process other information than just our skin & hair and conclude that she is not being kidnapped and that I'm probably her father or maybe stepfather. But I see this every single day that we go out together and so know that some people may have a harder time not seeing Obama as someone who doesn't "match" the presidential mold; but I'm also very hopeful that over the next month and a half that enough people will come to realize that as they process the rest of the information that he is the only person for the job this year.
September 19, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you about the wiring of the human psyche. I'd like to add something a bit arcane from structural anthropology, or at least an idea that some take from "structuralism." When the psyche has an pre-wired "switch" about some external stimulus, that switch can be persuaded by myth and culture to move one way or the other.
September 19, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wowwowwowwowwow. Sorry, but I disagree that humans are "hardwired" or "predisposed" to be racist. There is no scientific, across-the-board proof.
What we can prove is that people are taught to be racist.
September 19, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I 100% agree that humans are taught to be racist; but our instinct is to evaluate our surroundings quickly and using very superficial information at first pass. I believe that without being taught that a particular skin color or something superficial like that is something to fear or avoid then of course we would not react; but that doesn't mean that we aren't constantly evaluating our surroundings for these superficial indicators of danger.
You can see in our children who at an early age are open to all people unless they are later taught not too. So the interpretation of the information gathered is taught; but not the instinct to gather it and try to interpret it in the first place.
September 19, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe the "law of the jungle" applies to humans. Humans have very few inborn instincts. Our brains are built for learning.
I can watch more instinct at work in the 2 kittens I live with than in the 2 children I live with.
September 19, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is not what I'm saying. Perhaps it's not clear. You can get off the train at any moment of the argument because it's debatable, but let me get it to you. There are some pre-wired kinds of responses for humans. These responses are dual in nature. One isn't pre-wired to be a racist. One is pre-wired to recognize differences. The wiring is binary in nature --it goes either way, and to different degrees. Myth and culture are the environment that teaches the brain which way the switch goes. The switch is the wiring. Which way it goes is not.
September 19, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree it's binary. Sorry.
September 19, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. To be clear: I get the argument. I disagree with it.
September 19, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No problem. And binary is often too simplistic in the long run, three or more suggested at times. But this is a scientific argument
really and perhaps best left for a debate about Claude Lévi-Strauss and his disciples and detractors arguing till the end of time. It just seemed relevant to me in response to John AH.
Let's agree on the important issue. Racism has to be learned in a culture. Seems like that is the more important question question.
I shouldn't have started up with that one, Gasket.
September 19, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
An argument till the end of time? Count me in.
I'm going to jump right in and agree and disagree with both of you.
In seeking to find the common thread among culture, Levi-Strauss sought to find the universalities of the mind. He got a lot right, as much of neuroscience and neuropsychology shows - as Gasket notes, we are wired to learn. Which would include information processing - which we do in part by classifying, in order to make sense of a chaotic world. It's how we know that thing with four sticks on the bottom and a flat top is a table but the thing with four sticks on the bottom and a flat top and a thing sticking out of the flat top is a chair. Really fascinating is the study of object recognition. And also the study of when it is absent in agnosia.
We do it to all sorts of things. Food, nature, inanimate objects, and people. From Newsweek:
But meaning is always a construct. His theory of binary opposition is best applied, in my opinion, in evaluating the way in which meaning is constructed, rather than the way in which the mind "innately" thinks. Our thought is built on language, a construct itself. Our mind may be wired to recognize that blue is different than green (or not, if you're colorblind), but we attach meaning to those noticed differences in being taught the words "blue" and "green".
I believe stereotypes develop in much the same way. They are social constructs, over time. When they become engrained in our own minds, so much so that they seem unconscious, it is because they have become linked with our perception of difference and patterns. So your mind retrieves the full set of information, both the classification and the constructed stereotype. It is why when we are presented with exceptions we struggle. Cognitive dissonance occurs. Have you ever come across someone randomly on the street, in passing, who is androgynous? I always look at people's faces first, which I'm assuming most people do. If you're anything like me, you take that extra second or two. No clues on the face. Look elsewhere, maybe the curve of hips, or the jaw line, or their chests? I'm guessing I'm not the only one who does that. And it's not to judge a person, I don't think, but because we like our classifications. Take a look at this face. Did you look just a second longer?
Derrida noted that cultures mark one half of those binary pairs superior. Calm/moody, Interesting/boring, strong/weak. One is good and one is bad. And we do the same, culturally speaking, to woman/man, gay/straight, black/white.
We all have varied experiences and different cultural values. We may be exposed to bigotry in one place and equality in another. What then determines what guides our own moral compasses?
September 19, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa.....beach girl is back.
As a someone for whom structuralism constitutes the basis of my understanding of the world, I'll say that you've hit the big problem with your last idea: "What then guides our own moral compass."
Many attacks on structuralism suggest that when used, we're off the hook. I don't agree but I understand the concern. It's a good one to thresh out though. Let's do it sometime.
September 19, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once she threw that Derrida punch, it was pretty much over, I figger - cause damn if that man couldn't argue 18 angles on anything. OK, I usually daren't mention the bloody academics & their books, but just this once..... My view? Fuck the structuralists. They did some great stuff, but the people I found more fun were the ones moving beyond it. The structuralist game is too easy - you can haul any/everything into the structure til no reality remains free to contradict them. Plus, it's personally hellaciously disempowering. In anthropology, Mary Douglas & that Oxford crowd lost history entirely - which was kinda important, given the impact of the slave trade on Africa. In economics, Althusser & Poulantzas were so locked in they achieved total hopelessness and destroyed their lives (murder & suicide) - hell, Baudrillard was crazy as a hen, but more fun by far. In science, Feyerabend pretty much won game/setmatch as far as I could see. Litcrit? Most of them a waste of space - Northrop Frye miles ahead. In politics? Gimme Rorty & the pragmatists and anybody who keeps some room open upstairs. I mean, I liked Foucault, Derrida, Kuhn - because they busted the place up a bit. But once their followers got rolling, they pretty much rolled up any independent thought.
But I find now that - while that world was fun to spend time in - there're things I find more amazing, more mind-OPENING, than theory. Human beings basically use 3 cones to determine colour. Birds use four (and some, five.) Which means... they can see in the ultraviolet. So to them... a crow doesn't look... single-coloured "black." It's actually multi-coloured. that just blows me away. Changes how I see everything. Think how it'd change our view of "race," if only we had thrown up a gene that had that 4th cone working. More multi-coloured people. Think if we saw in the infrared. She's "got" - whole new meaning.
Anyway. It's Nietzsche. Top to bottom, why bother with substitutes? ;-)
September 19, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I certainly agree that there is no such thing as predisposition toward racism. It's a learned skill... handed down diligently from one generation to the next, stoked ceaselessly by the powers that be who invented the concept.
September 19, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
An inspiring post.
September 19, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
No matter how much you water it down, you'll never be more than "one of the good ones" to white folks - and that ain't much.
September 19, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, and I appreciate your sharing your personal story. Very powerful. I'm sorry that the thread seemed to get hijacked at some points.
I am still and always hopelessly naive about racism. I understand it intellectually, know it's out there, know it's quite prevalent in some places, and yet, on an emotional level, every time I encounter it, I am surprised and hurt again. At a gut level, I do not understand how it's possible to hate and judge on the basis of skin.
I grew up in an virtually all-white neighborhood, and my first memory of race came in second grade when a black girl joined our class. She joined after classes had already begun for the year, and when the teacher introduced her, some of the students were cruel. I remember feeling shocked and sad that they would do that, feeling some combination of empathy and shame that confused me.
No matter how much I learn, how much I see, no matter how much I process issues of racism intellectually, at heart, I still respond like my seven-year-old self. Shocked and sad, empathetic and ashamed.
September 19, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
My first notice of race was, probably, my third or fourth year. I knew what a Hershey bar was, and the color of the rapper. The school bus that stopped and picked up my older sister and brother for shcool was the same color. Then I noticed a family in the neighborhood in the family that was the same color. To me, they all associated to the Hershey bar: chocolate bust, chocolate people.
It should be obvious that there was no hostiligy in it.
3-4 years later it was a shock to discover there were people who had a problem over the "issue". I'm now beyond the shock: I get angry.
September 19, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your post. Rec'd.
It's posts like yours that renew my faith in the 'idea' of America- the original concept, despite it's being conceived by intelligent whites "owning" other humans at the time. I doubt they would be able to stand that idea now. The world can change.
Obama's run offers the hope that we need, and it's for us to grasp at if we will just do it, grit our teeth and act on it!
Your post does both as well. Your work is inspiring. God bless.
September 19, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boyd, thanks for this post. Very, very highly rec'd.
I'm not a racial Pollyanna. I know Obama faces a more uphill struggle than a white candidate would. John Kerry was elitist and faced many of the same struggles Obama has connecting to white working class voters. That's why he picked John Edwards to reach out to these voters. Obama, with the added factor of race, is not just elitist but "uppity." Does that mean these voters are not voting for Obama because of race? It may be a factor for some, but John Kerry didn't win those voters either so race is not the only explanation.
I agree with pretty much all of that quote Boyd, except the "especially whites" part. We all have preconceptions based on stereotypes and they are not just limited to race. We have stereotypes of republicans and poor people and rich people and religious people and gay people and basically anyone that does not see the world as we do. In our attempt to understand why these folks don't agree with our irrefutable logic, we create our own motivations to explain their actions. And for some Obama supporters that de facto explanation for someone's failure to support Obama came down to race.
For example, I think we all remember the Obama supporter's reactions to WV which overwhelmingly supported Hillary. WV was stereotyped as a state full of uneducated, hillbilly, ignorant, racist, backwards people who would never vote for black man. Other possible explanations for Hillary's strong support there were ignored. Like the fact Hillary was viewed positively by 72% of the voters. Or WV is the second poorest state in the nation and the Clinton administration made significant achievements in lowering the poverty rate. Fast forward to today and Obama is down 3 points in polls to McCain in West Virgina, a state the Obama campaign wrote off because of their own stereotypes and prejudices. A state where he spent 3 hours campaigning and only spoke on military issues, not the economic populist message that would connect with those voters. I'd argue the Obama campaign's bigotry has hurt the campaign because had he really campaigned there, respected those voters, we might be ahead.
And while I think Oceankat misread your post in saying you use racism as the only reason why some folks are hesitant to back Obama, I empathize because Clinton supporters have heard that argument throughout the campaign accused of backing a candidate who was "race-baiting." Failure to support the democratic candidate is assumed to be based on race this year, whereas if a Deaniac didn't support Kerry we disagreed with them and thought they were foolish, but they weren't demonized as racist.
As an African American Hillary backer, it's easier for me to make the case that my choosing Hillary was not based on race. There are good Democrats, white voters who would be excited to vote for a black candidate, but preferred Hillary instead or Obama is just not the candidate they want to vote for because of policies or issues. They resent the implication that racism is the cause for their lack of support. The only way to find out why people are not supporting Obama is to talk to them and ask them, not make our own assumptions. I admire that you are getting out there and talking to those Appalachian voters Boyd. Of course you will come across some racist asshats, but the way to counter bigotry and stereotypes is by confronting them head on, not by giving in to our own prejudices.
September 19, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Egads apologies for the length of that post. It's positively Quinn-ian :) But I appreciate the open discussion of race and politics without an accusatory framework that I think has been stifling some previous discussions.
September 19, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Dij. And I'm happy to now pass you my Crown (though I should warn you, there are a LOT of contenders round here.) And doesn't it feel GOOD to now and then launch into a good long chat, connecting dots 1 to 2 to 3?
As you know, this should only be done RARELY, however. Personally, I try to limit myself to one an hour. Just remember our slogan, Don't Let The Sun Go Down On Your Comment.
September 19, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should just get a bumper sticker: Canadians Post Longer! But it's always worthwhile, so you get a pass ;)
September 19, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
But DJ, how can you square that he came out as the "audacity" multi-cultural candidate and now we have problems him being called the "uppity" multi-cultural candidate? Doesn't "audacious" and "uppity" kinda mean the same thing? I think he should wear it, represent the "uppity" citizen, those that think we can be safe and still respect the Constitution, those who think we can be prosperous but maintain a safety net. Uppity little citizens we are. Just say it, "uppity" = "speaking up when the economy crashes rather than riding along like little sheep". "Uppity = racism" just isn't going to work for him.
September 19, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Audacity to me has a connotation of daring or fearlessness. Uppity suggests someone who is out of their "place" in society. It's much worse than elitist or snooty because those at least presuppose that the person belongs in that category. No one that I can recall said John Kerry was uppity. Sometimes words matter.
I don't think it's uppity to expect a government that works and respects the Constitution. Demanding citizens expecting better of our government - that's what I'd like to see.
September 19, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have the audacity to tell me that?
September 19, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer aud"ass"ity Desi :)
September 19, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Double trumped, I concede and whimper softly away.
September 20, 2008 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was for Hillary from the outset, because I like her, and she's qualified. Obama was a new face, and I didn't think him as qualified. But it was all along, "Any Democrat will do" as compared to what we've had.
Mostly, though, I dug the gorgeous dilemma:
1. Vote, as traditionally, for the white -- who happens to be a woman; or,
2. Vote, as traditionally, for the man -- who happens to be black.
No way to escape that reality except to vote Republican or third party. But we know no one is stupid enought to do that.
September 19, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's Philadelphia speech called for a national dialogue on race. I've written some blogs that have tried to present some facets of that discussion. Some people liked it, some didn't. Some got the larger point; some didn't. When the opportunity exists to exchange real thoughts on the matter, sans partisanship and bickering, it's a rare treat. I'll have to indulge myself here, Quinn be damned. :-)
I could probably write 4-5 additional blogs on the issues you raise. However, I'll focus on the last paragraph of your excellent commentary.
I agree that they should resent that implication, and reject it out of hand. It's the same response that I give people who imply - or overtly state - that I support Obama due to race. I have to remind them that I spent over a year planning to vote for Clinton, and that I would never have voted for Jackson in '84 or '88.
I think this gets to the heart of the matter. More often than not, I've found that voters - especially in places where there aren't very many Black people - get their views of Blacks in general by watching the media sources I mention in the blog. The prevailing stereotypes there aren't good, to be honest.
So, when they see Obama, they have to balance their stereotype - which never gets challenged in their day-to-day lives - with the calm, rational, dignified man they see on their TV. They're intrigued, but the stereotype is still too strong for them to really consider voting for him. So, my goal is to be as calm and articulate as possible when interacting with these people. Every vote that can be peeled in those tough Rust Belt areas counts double, because they are definitely voting Republican unless we can show them why that's such a bad idea, especially now.
My hope is that, if I keep knocking on doors and knocking down assumptions, maybe some of the people I meet will see what I see: that what unites us, as Obama says, is greater than what divides us. After all, if two people believe in hard work, fair play, raising children to be productive citizens, our system of laws, and the need for fundamental change in our government, then open and fair dialogue should be able to hash out whatever differences there may be.
September 19, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you resent the implication? Over 90% of blacks supported Obama. More like a 50% split of whites supported him. While you'd be foolish to say that every black supported him because of color, you'd also be foolish to say that extra 40% had nothing to do with it. There are many reasons to vote for candidates, and identity has a lot to do with why people vote - where they live, their profession, their gender, their race, their education, etc. No one seemed to have a problem assuming West Virginia voters voted the way they did because of their color. Are black voters above normal petty human instincts?
September 19, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're being obtuse. I said that I (as in "me", "speaking for myself", "not trying to speak for a whole race of people") resent the implication or statement, etc.etc.
That means that race didn't trigger my support for Obama. NOWHERE do I state OR imply that this is how every Black person feels.
Do you get that? Because your comments on this thread seem to say that I am somehow attempting to be the Spokesman For The Black Race™. That is an outright falsehood.
If you DO get that point, then your comment doesn't make much sense to me.
September 19, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I resent being part of the human race and being labeled with their petty problems.
September 19, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
My favorite canvassing story this year from NE Philly - a pretty white working class older union neighborhood. We knocked on the door and it was an older white man (meaning I'm guessing 70s) and came out talking about how he's a democrat but he's not voting in the primary. He's an Edwards man, but he's not voting for Hillary or Obama. He'd rather vote for shit on a stick than vote for Hillary. He kept denigrating Hillary personally as why he would never vote for her. My canvassing partner went on to the next house, but I stayed around because... well I like to argue with asshats.
So I asked him to explain why he'd vote for McCain. McCain's a patriot, strong man etc. I started talking with him about the economy, social security, home foreclosures etc. Who does he think can help us out of this mess - Hillary or McCain. Yes Hillary is better but she's such a nagging bitch. (?!?) Let me get this straight...you know Hillary is better but won't vote for her simply because you don't like her personally or because her husband had an affair? Is Hillary's bitchiness personally impacting your life as negatively as McCain will? He got to the point where not only was he voting for Hillary in the primary but said he would vote for her in the general election to. Only took 20 minutes! As I turned to leave, he said "But I'll never vote for Obama."
So I turned around and argued with him (politely) for another 40 minutes exposing his biases and misconceptions. The Obama's a muslim & a racist christian (at the same time) canard. The he's too inexperienced and I don't know about him canard. Why would I waste time debating him on these issues? Not because I thought Obama was going to eventually win because I truly believed Hillary would at that point. The point is that we can confront racism and sexism and bigotry rather than just wright those people off as a lost cause. The best defense against such bigotry is facts and self-interest. We do NOT have to pander to them, but we can slap them upside the head with logic and say hello idiot is your dislike for black folk and women outside the kitchen so ginormous that you consider it more important than the things that really matter?
I wonder whether that guy actually voted for Hillary in the primary and will vote for Obama as well (or at least not for McCain) as he said he would. It's easier when facing people like that to just stomp away in anger and say screw them. But I'd rather try and fail 5 times, than give up the one person who is open to seriously challenge their own prejudices.
My last treatise for the day before I crash the servers :) Happy canvassing in OH!
September 19, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should swap stories sometime. Canvassing is really the one thing that's made me believe Obama can win this election.
Your story is excellent because it illustrates precisely the effect that logic and reason can have on even the most hardened voter.
It's exactly what I try to do - and I get maybe one out of every 6-8 doors to listen. But at least I've tried to get the truth out there.
Thank you for your thoughts, as always. Enjoy PA!
September 19, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boyd, excellent post. I almost put myself in your shoes--I'm from Cahokia (which is right by East. St. Louis for those who don't know) and certainly have encountered similar situations.
I recently signed up to make phone calls myself and have already been doing voting registration drives and donating money to the campaign. I'm only 21 and couldn't vote in 2004, but I find it bittersweet to notice blacks finally getting into the political process. It's great blacks care once again, but it's disheartening that it took a black guy to get them interested. My mother recently registered and she can't remember the last time she voted.
I'm also glad that your post has spurned very necessary discussion not just on TPM, but in our country. I'd read all 58 comments but that'd take a while...
September 19, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cahokia, huh? I always liked to see the Mounds on I-64 E...meant I was close to home.
Thanks for the comments, and I'm glad you enjoyed the blog. Just a few things.
(1) I think you'll see similar spikes in minority registration when a Hispanic American gets nominated, an Asian American gets nominated, etc.etc. It's understandable, if a bit disheartening as you say. It's a lot easier to get pumped about someone who at least seems to be like you.
(2) Here's hoping you're working in Missouri and/or Indiana. :-)
September 19, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like most people whose work involves anti-racist organizing, I operate under the assumption that all whites - including me - are racist. I believe that we can't live in the flooded waters or American racism without getting wet. Our news, our television stories, our movies, books and cultural institutions promote a racist worldview daily - so we are affected by it.
The question is whether we are willing to recognize that our worldview has been filtered and formed by racism. IF we can do that simple thing, we can then struggle to limit racism's effects on our thinking and behavior.
Just because I am a racist does not mean I have to walk, talk and act like one. I can struggle against white privilege and the assumptions that cloud my thinking and be actively anti-racist.
September 19, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
Why should reality be so controversial?
September 19, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
All white people are racists? Come on. Get a grip.
September 19, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I have a grip, Cypher, a solid grip on reality. You might like to pretend that the culture you grew up in had to effect on you, that you have not internalized any of the messages sent to you through media, family, school and other influencers on a daily basis, but I am not so naive.
you don't swim in a pool and not get wet.
September 19, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boyd, you are a better man than me, when you write that you swallow your anger, roll up your sleeves and work harder.
I was especially taken by the part of your argument where you write:
"All Obama's trying to do is convince over 100 million voters that he's not a drug-using, service-dodging, White-hating, wealth-taxing, socialist, liberal, elitist, Communist-Muslim atheist who advocates safe sex for kindergarteners. If that's not enough chainsaws to juggle, he has to do all that while riding a unicycle of unity and explaining to people that he's really a devoted Christian husband and father who has given his life to serving others and who has the temperament, judgment and intellect to lead our tattered nation and a combustible world. Every single word and deed is fraught with the danger of upending this remarkable juggling act."
My only question is this: how are you going to feel if he loses? As for myself, I will have to deal with real despair. And I will really have to wonder if we as a country are anywhere near ready to give up our prejudices.
oceankat describes Obama as a "flawed" candidate, but the flaws he mentions -- not being a veteran, admitting to having used drugs, having continued to attend church led by Wright, not being able to connect with working-class whites to the same extent as a white "war hero" -- well, it is hard to imagine a candidate who isn't flawed by those measures. By the weird standards that we hold a "president" to, especially the requirement of military service (so easily satisfied by a desk stint in the Texas National Guard), sure, he is flawed, but so is McCain. So has every single unsuccessful and successful presidential candidate in my memory.
So what we are left with, if a black man as sterling as Obama ends up losing is this: racism will have done him in. There can be no other explanation. I am not saying that any reasonable person would have to vote for him; I am arguing that the laws of parsimony dictate that racism is the simplest explanation for that eventuality, and we as a country will need to face up to that.
September 19, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
For anyone trying to make the argument that racism is not in play in this election far beyond the 30% who openly admit it's a factor, let's just consider that th eman who promises to continue and expand an unpopular war, threatens to expand that war to yet another country, openly admits his utter ignorance of economics in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the great depression, who chooses an nonentity plagued with scandals all linked to vindictive and small-minded pettiness and a religious fanatic married to a secessionist traitor is polling within the margin on error of a man whose career has been in community service, who was editor of the Harvard Law Review, who promises to pull us out of that disastrous war and pursue the foreign policy favored by the public by 70% and whose party has a history of cleaning up the messes of the other party, whose has no embarrassing "fundamentals are great" gaffes, and who chose an eminently qualified "man of the people" running mate. .
That any Republican can poll in the margin of error with the democratic nominee after this adminstration is all the evidence we need that racism is playing a starring role in McCain's support.
September 19, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
People go crazy when talking about racism because the media so frequently limits open discussion of racism to talking about racist extremists like the Klan, White Aryan Resistance and crude idiots like Kramer-actor and Don Imus.
That's the frosting on the toxic cake that is American racism. The real heart of American racism is not the obvious, unsubtle exhibitionistic racism of the uber-haters, it's the response of Human Resource people to resumes with names like Shanequa and DeVon on them.
It's the surprise expressed everytime a black person is well-spoken.
It's the disproportionate level of policing in black neighborhoods that sees blacks incarcerated for drug use and possiession at 5 times the rate of whites despite whites using and selling drugs at slightly higher rates than blacks.
It's the assumption that blacks are less literate than whites (expressed several times in different ways this last week on TPM Cafe's discussion of education) even though a greater percentage of whites have not read a book in the last year than blacks.
It's the acceptance of low black homeownership as lack of good financial planning rather than the result of redlining and exclusion of blacks from earned GI benefits, FHA loans etc. It's blaming blacks for black poverty rather than the deliberate exclusion of black-dominated occupations from social security and unemployment insurance.
I could go on, but it's exhausting to list the many ways whites benefit from a racist social, economic and educations structure and never recognize it or recognize how extraordinarily privileged white existence is compared to black experience - in general - in this country.
Being white, my knowledge of black experience is through the eyes of my friends and it's damn gruesome. For example, one friend moved to an apartment complex in Gresham where some biker-thugs painted swastikas and the n'word ont heir door and windows. So they were evicted, not the biker-thugs, no, the black family was evicted for the bikerthug vandalism.
A firend of mine has been pulled over by the cops 5 times just this year - never cited, never ticketed, but pulled over and harassed - while the cops looked int he windows, sniffed and leaned and did their best to provoke a scene that could lead to an arrest or ticket. And you know, I have never even seen him not wearing a suit as he is an interpreter at the Court House.
September 19, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks so much for working against the tide and for telling this story. I find it very moving and will enjoy sharing it with many others.
We're going to elect Obama, and we'll cry tears of joy together.
Best to you on the canvassing trail.
September 19, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Explain to me how believing the absolute worst in all people, in the absence of any supporting quantifiable scientific data, is reality.
I'm still not buying it.
Misanthropy is a poor substitute for science.
Sure, misanthropy makes you look cool (Hell, it worked wonders for Vonnegut, Ty Cobb, Trent Reznor, Molière, Jonathan Swift, W.C. Fields, Rousseau and the French* in general). But a dialogue on race, especially amongst folks who have never met, that places "Everybody is racist" squarely at it's foundation is a very silly discussion.
Prejudice begets prejudice.
Bigotry begets bigotry.
Racism begets racism.
-AF
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
*It's a joke people.
September 20, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, great post, Reed! I couldn't get past the first few comments, though. Just trolls and other lunatics - and the people trying to reply to them. It's too bad, because your post was excellent.
Most of the (white) racists I know don't mean to be racist, and in fact, they don't believe that they are. But it's the old 'us vs them' feeling. If a white man does something wrong, he's just a bad man, not a bad white man. His race doesn't even register. But race always registers if it's someone of a different race (a minority race, in particular). That happens whether the behavior is good, bad, or indifferent - but the bad sticks in memory much better, of course.
Unfortunately, that's just human nature. And it's not just race. It can be religion, ethnicity, national origin, etc. But on the bright side, we've gotten past some of this stuff, so there's no reason we can't get past racial differences, too. In fact, we are, if more slowly that we'd like. I doubt if we'll ever get completely away from 'us vs them,' since that seems to be innate, but we can expand it. And we don't have to use race as a determinant - in fact, we won't, eventually. It just takes time.
September 20, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Boyd,
Wow. That was insightful and moving. In high school I attended school in the Parkway School District, a white, suburban, upper middle class district. I competed in many debate tournaments at Horton Watkins and as a white, blonde teen aged girl I felt out of place. I can't imagine how uncomfortable you felt, but your story gave me a pretty good idea. We would often wonder out of our competition areas to think, reread our arguments or practice speeches. Several times teachers would shoo me back into the designated areas, but it was more like "hey, kids you aren't allowed to be here." And that was it.
I have so much to say in response to your diary, but I will just make a few comments. My husband and I moved from St. Louis to Tulsa, OK. I don't see the racism or the extent of segregation that I did in St. Louis, but there is plenty here. I think this election has been a healing experience for all of us.
I was a Hillary supporter early in the primaries. As a professional woman I had hoped this would be the year that a woman would win. Like, you but to a much different extent I had worked my way through a man's field being touched in ways I didn't want, advances made, crude comments and I was passed over for promotions and positions by woefully inadequate men. I handled them much as you did. I had to let it go, because fighting them was pointless. You just have to work a little harder, be a little better.
When Hillary started her campaign I thought finally! Finally, little girls thoughout America can dream big. You can tell a little girl that she can be anything she wants, but without an example why should they believe you. I assume it is the same for a black child.
What I didn't realize until Hillary started her run is that it wasn't just for little girls, but for little boys too. Until we have an example of a female Commander-in-Chief, little boys won't think women can be anything they want either. There will always be that disconnect.
After reading the Audacity of Hope and watching Obama I realized that he was the superior candidate. I was hooked. In fact, he is by far the best candidate I have seen in my lifetime. I had to put aside my dreams for a woman president but I was delighted that the best candidate would also be able to serve as an example for little black children AND little white children. I have no regrets about my decision. Obama stuns me every day. He is so even tempered, brilliant, insightful and pragmatic and gifted at bringing people together.
In canvassing and making phone calls this year I have learned so much about the state of racism in our country. I knew there were shades of racism, but I didn't get that even people like me have some tinge of it simply because I don't have to think about it often.
When Palin's daughter was pregnant and someone pointed out that there would be far less support had it been an unmarried pregnant teenaged daughter of Obama it was an instant realization. Obama would have been out of the race and that is that. Several other similar situations have arisen. Obama has to be perfect, far more qualified, far more even-tempered, smarter, wiser, etc. than his white very defective counterpart. And still people say things like "I don't like McCain, but I just can't bring myself to vote for Obama." When asked why, they will say things like "He might be a Muslim" or "I just can't put my finger on it." Most of these people don't even consider consciously that their hesitation is racially motivated, but when you ask them aloud "is it because he's black?" They look shocked, but often hesitate. It surprises and bothers people who have those thoughts and have never been asked to confront them. But openly challenging them is the only way to rid ourselves of those latent thoughts.
Thank you for the insight, your patience and example. I will use that information as I canvass and make calls in support of our incredible candidate.
September 20, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"wonder" = "wander" Sorry the whole thing rambled but I really was moved and had so much I wanted to acknowledge and validate that I just rambled on. Should have said: well rec'd, Boyd. Thank you.
September 20, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the title of this post is apt. Unbelievably, racism does work for Boyd and others.
September 21, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment