This entry is in response to Trailerville's post
"It's Racism, Not Racists". I wanted to present a more detailed rebuttal of his/her premise.
First, I want to commend Trailerville for tackling the subject. As you will see, we disagree, but his/her post was less a rant, than a thoughtful presentation of his/her opinion. I recommended Trailerville's post. [From here on out, I will use the pronoun "he" to refer to Trailerville. Apologies if my assumption is wrong.]
Racists aren't the major problem in America.
Racism in America is clouded by the term "racist". While there definitely are some flat out racist people, that isn't the major issue.
The first problem with Trailerville's assessment is that he want to sever ties between "racism" and the people who do it, "the racists."
It is a false separation. Racism can only exist if there are people to perpetuate it. There is no racist "bogeyman." As I've said before, you do not need to be a card-carrying member of the KKK to be an "official" racist. And Americans need to stop looking at the problem in such a simplistic manner.
It's the subtleties of prejudice that keep race an issue in America. [snip] I don't think there is anything malevolent about people who have this subtle form of racism. [snip] People aren't allowed to address the subtleties though, because it's presented within the dichotomy. If they admit they have some subtle prejudices (as we all actually do), then they are racist. If they don't, then they can be not racist.
People get upset over accusations of being racist, because most of them are not. The entire debate about race is framed in a way that ensures that nothing can be done about it. The only way to get past the prejudices is by acknowledging reality to recognize what they are and where they come from.
Trailerville gives us a lot to work through in the clips I've presented.
Racial prejudice, subtle or not, is a form of racism. If you hold prejudices against Jewish people, you are anti-Semitic. Unfortunately, the lack of "malevolence" depends on which side of the issue you are on. If you're the one holding subtle prejudices against another group, of course you don't see anything wrong with it. In your mind, you're just making innocent "distinctions" or "observations" about the other guy. On the other hand, if you're the one about whom those distinctions and observations are being made, it's a very different story. One man's subtle prejudices may keep another man out of a job, out of a home, out of college. Not because of any overt maliciousness, but because those subtle prejudices allow the first man to suggest the second "is not like me" or "he's not one of us."
People do get upset at being called "racist" because the norm in our society is that you are not supposed to be -- and this is important -- perceivably racist. So when Trailerville says we have to get past the prejudices, by recognizing what they are and where they come from, he's right as far as he goes. What they are is racism , and where they come from are racists.
That is harsh, but that is the reality. We have to come to grips that this is a country on the premise that enslaving an "inferior" people was acceptable, and maintaining the distinction of superior over inferior, to this day, is acceptable. We must come to grips with the fact that our society offers special benefit to those who can identify with the "superior" group -- even if you do nothing to ever suggest your personally want or agree with that benefit.
Race is affecting this election, but as observer2 said, bringing up the issue won't help us.
I disagree. A week or two ago, I offered up a post and quoted extensively from a book by Princeton University professor Tali Mendelberg about the Race Card and Campaign Strategy. Mendelberg, in a very academic manner -- meaning there are charts and graphs and statistics!! -- demonstrates that time after time, the most effective way to defuse the race bomb in elections is to call out racist advertising and racist campaigning when you see it.
In American politics, two things hold true for white voters in particular: they do not like to be identified as racists (as Trailerville post amply demonstrates), but highly susceptible to racially coded campaigns and advertising.
Similarly, two things hold true for white politicians: they do not like to be identified as racists, (see John McCain's campaign), but will use racism, racist campaigning and racist advertising to their advantage to win an election.
The takeway lesson is white politicians will use the methodology of campaigning white voters are most susceptible to (racially coded) in order to win, as long as they each have deniability. As a voter, you don't want to acknowledge the politician is appealing to your "subtle prejudices" to get your vote, and he doesn't want to be caught with his hand in the racism cookie jar.
There is not much point in trying to assign blame to anyone for the debate being the way it is ...
No, the point is that if you want to change the debate, place the blame squarely on the shoulders of those who are to blame. It is far too easy to blame the media. While they deserve a portion of the criticism, the real burden lies with us. When we vote for politicians who use racist tactics to get elected, we have given them the "go" sign, like a third base coach waving them on to home base. We've just said, it's fine to appeal to our base instincts of racial prejudice.
This is not a debate or discussion that will end anytime soon. But until we are really ready to talk about it -- racism -- it is never going to be contained.
Thanks again, Trailerville, for starting a great discussion.
