Racism vs The Race Card

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/04/racism-vs-the-race-card/256072/

The conservative viewpoint in the debate starts at 9:30 into the clip...

From comments:

We conservatives will have a purge of the folks you liberals especially hate if you liberals have a purge of the folks we especially hate.

I think this sort of thinking is endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism. For them it isn't an actual force, but a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents. So one does not call Robert Weissberg racist and question his ties to National Review because one seeks to stamp out racism, but because one hopes to secure the White House for Democrats. Or some such. Even if you have a record of calling out bigotry voiced by people deemed to be "on your team," it doesn't much matter because there's no real belief in it existing to begin with.

The conservative movement doesn't understand anti-racism as a value, only as a rhetorical pose. This is how you end up tarring the oldest integrationist group in the country (the NAACP) as racist. The slur has no real moral content to them. It's all a game of who can embarrass who.

If you don't think racism is an actual force in the country, then you can only understand it's invocation as a tactic.

This is a very old way of you thinking. It's what you get out of watching Buckley's bumbling response to Baldwin--he neither regards Baldwin with any seriousness, nor the issue with any real concern. It's a game to him. He is effectively a homer for team red. Nothing else matters.

That tradition of viewing racism, not as an actual thing of import, but merely as rhetoric continues today. To abandon that tradition, I suspect, would be cause for an existential crisis.

EDIT: A bit more:

so, in your view, this justifies black panthers' death threats or the racism of al sharpton and the likes (White folks was [sic] in caves while we was building empires), or the racist attack mobs of black youths against white people, the fact george zimmerman is hispanic but the "post-racial" leftwing media shoved down everyone's throat that he in fact is a "white hispanic" ensuing a nationwide anti-white wave amongst black thugs, black teenagers murdering 90 year old white women, etc, etc.

Notice the same formula. The argument isn't really important. What's been written in this space isn't really important. It's a game.

[chessdev] I think this article, short as it is, is right on the money. Over and over again, we see arguments from posters here who claim to acknowledge the existence of racism -- and yet, no situation ever seems to qualify as racist.

Yes, there are people who see racism in every sentence and every gesture -- but that is extremist and rare. The problem is when even people who dont think that way and live otherwise completely integrated lives are still disbelieved... then we cross over into Denialism, and I think that viewpoint goes (and has gone) a long way into keeping the divide in this country nice and strong.

Comments

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

I have an inquiry on-topic. Did I do something wrong here (http://t-p-nonsense.livejournal.com/163739.html)?

I may be insensitive to this particular type of definition of racism, I acknowledge that I may have made a silly joke that must have come across as racist. I need to see different perspectives from mine on this. Spoiler alert: I live in South Africa and am myself of mixed race (what we self-call "coloured" here).

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

I can understand how someone Asian could be offended by that - although it's "humor", it's still playing
off old stereotypes, some of which could be seen as negative.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

I felt it was racist humour, given the stereotypes as mentioned as by chessdev, however I would not go so far as to call you racist based off the post. I also, as a mod, let the post stand because it was not anything that broke the rules or anything that was horribly offensive, although others might have felt different. My thinking was let it be and if anyone wanted to say anything to you on, let them.

[fornikate.livejournal.com]

it was racist.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

It is definitely racist because the characters running around the border are Hiragana.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Intent matters. There's a lot racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. meme's floating around, so much that we are basically blind to much of it. So, I tend to forgive those that fall into it unwittingly and I tend to get pissed at those who "push it".

There is a difference between saying something that is racist versus actually believe racist things. Some blurry lines there at the edges too, but again, I worry about those who move towards those edges versus those who try to err away from them.

I'm not immune, but I know enough that my prejudices cause delusions.

1/2

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I think there's some truth to this concept, as yes, many conservatives do fully believe that the "force" of racism is widely overstated, and that many so-called "anti-racist" groups tend to be the most racist of all - I don't think the NAACP is as problematic as an "anti-racist" entity as, say, someone like Tim Wise, who appears to have significant hatred for whites, which is pretty much textbook racism.

On the other hand, Coates seems to be basing a lot of this belief not so much on the real world (his only real world example is a debate from 47 years ago), but of internet discussions and commentary, where there's one subset of people who will say and do horrible things involving racial commentary that would never, ever be done in the real world, and a rather loud, over-the-top rage factory on the other side (think sf_d types in the LJ-verse) that reacts to everything as having a [insert concept]-ist angle to it. This is not to discount the horribleness of the former, but to also highlight the ridiculousness of the latter.

Over and over again, we see arguments from posters here who claim to acknowledge the existence of racism -- and yet, no situation ever seems to qualify as racist.

This is the problem - language is evolving, and there's still a lot of problems with how we use the word racist. An easy example - blackface. As a thing, it's pretty damn racist. Any casual look at history can tell us that. Meanwhile, we have people who may believe that, say, Billy Crystal's Sammy Davis Jr (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/billy-crystal-oscars-blackface-criticism-sammy-davis-295558) at the Oscars was racist, or Robert Downey Jr in Tropic Thunder (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Robert-Downey-Jr-In-Blackface-For-Tropic-Thunder-8066.html), and consider those on the same level as Jolson-esque blackface (http://www.superstock.com/stock-photos-images/252-359). There's no nuance, there's no difference, and, most importantly, there's no context.

The arguments by conservatives, and I'll note that I'm speaking for myself here but believe I'm presenting it properly, is that intent matters. There's racial ignorance (a bunch of European comedians doing a blackface routine on a variety show without understanding the context) and there's outright racism (someone going to a political rally and dropping the n-bomb next to a picture of Obama). Too often these days, the "anti-racists," and those opposed to racism, see no difference between racially ignorant activity and intentional, actual racism, which weakens the word for the latter and overstates the situation of the former.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Tim Wise, who appears to have significant hatred for whites

That's an interesting contention. I have my own disagreements with Mr Wise, but I have read a fair bit of his writing and never scented “hatred for whites”. Can you be more specific?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If someone showed you people a lynching in the modern era with people shouting "Kill the niggers" you'd find some way to say this absolutely can't be racist, and if presented with all the evidence you ask for you would always reject it for some irrelevancy having nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

I agree that intent matters.

There are many circumstances in which people can play the race card, but I'll group them into these categories
* Confronting actual racism, the kind that has a real impact on people's lives through discrimination, violence and the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes.
* Playing gotcha with people who, without any meaningful degree of malice, use a politically incorrect term or line of argument - sure, they should know better, but they could probably be corrected without the histrionics
* Being a dick, e.g. sucker punching someone who isn't a racist by misrepresenting what they say, selectively quoting, strawmanning, outright lying, etc.

The first category is a legitimate. The second and third don't encourage a lot of sympathy for the cause.

Re: 1/2

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Who best to speak about white privilege than a privileged white person?

Is an anti-zionist Jew hateful toward Jews?

2/2

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yes, there are people who see racism in every sentence and every gesture -- but that is extremist and rare.

It is in the real world, but not on the political and social internet. The "white privilege" myth stems from this - that white people, solely by being white, have inherent racism and benefit from it. It's a ridiculous concept that carries significant weight in anti-racist circles, circles that are large and loud in online communities and are very visible in the places Coates is gathering his information from in this case.

The language has changed - racism as an overt, intentional thing in the real world in the United States? Essentially dead. Relegated to the fringe where it belongs. Racial ignorance? Alive and well, mostly because racism has become such a fringe situation - it's no longer strange to have multiracial events, have minorities on television, see minorities excel at sports, have a minority as President, etc. This ignorance manifests itself in people who don't know history, who don't understand why stereotyping is problematic, but it's not intentional and it's not done by people who think that the white race is somehow superior.

But it doesn't stop the "anti-racists" from calling them racist anyway.

That, I believe, is the viewpoint that's going a long way in keeping the divide in this country nice and strong. There is a cottage industry of pundits and activists who push the ignorance-is-racism model in part to keep the idea of racism-as-Important alive. Society has by and large moved forward on the issue of race. Those who think the whites are superior lost that debate decades ago, and until the anti-racist types who are keeping this alive understand that, we're not going to be able to move past it.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

"white privilege" myth stems from this - that white people, solely by being white, have inherent racism and benefit from it

I believe that you have confused the terms here. The idea of White privilege is not that White people “have inherent racism¹” but that White people operate within a racist² system and therefore benefit from it. Frankly, I think that much is undeniable: all other things being equal, being White is advantageous in America. Reasonable people may differ about how much of an advantage Whiteness confers, but I do not think that one can seriously claim that no such advantage exists.

1: “Racism”, in this instance, I take to mean bigotry, after your usage which integrally requires intent.

2: “Racist”, in this instance, I use in my preferred sense to mean unjust and inequitable, divided along racial categories. I believe that though most anti-racist activists would not quite frame the meaning of “racism” this way, it is close to their intent when they use this term.

By defining “racism” as overt bigotry — which I will agree is no longer a major force in American society, as it was not so long ago — you have played a semantic trick that makes anti-racists “wrong”. But they are not wrong, they are talking about something else. When they talk about “racism”, they are talking about systematic injustice. And call that what you will, there is plenty of that.

[fornikate.livejournal.com]

'white privilege myth'

lol, dude. i will never take anything you say about racism seriously again.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

The "white privilege" myth

Yeah, were I to have been in a position to take you seriously prior to that, that's where I would have stopped taking you seriously.

Your penchant to redefine EVERYTHING to match your narrative doesn't really get you anywhere.

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

chessdev, the black knight (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/605233.html?thread=44508209#t44508209)

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

And?

The conversation was minority status in the college system for my state.

Nowhere in there did we talk about racism or the race card there.
What exactly did you believe you were "revealing" there?

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Dude, you're trolling hard on this thread. I don't think this will pass.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I noticed that he took a lot of flak for commenting on Baldwin's use of a British accent. His snootiness in this debate is what has always put me off about him.

[weswilson]

I have never watched this debate before... and I have never respected Buckley less than I currently do. His glib dismissal of the problem because of the lack of a concrete solution to rectify it is arrogant, ignorant, and laden with ASTOUNDING privilege. He is, essentially, dismissing the poignant empathy presented by Baldwin in favor of a pathetic subservience to complacency.... and doing so in the name of resisting an imaginary war with radicalism. For all intents and purposes, he is saying, "Sure, it's unfair... and no unfairness is ever just... but since we don't have any good solutions, we should ignore the schism lest it hurt the very tools of our prosperity." I remain unclear how admitting exploitation and recognizing the complaint of that exploitation hurts production.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

“The central question that emerges … is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.”

—William F. Buckley, National Review, August 24, 1957

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Don't waste your time trying to get through the brick wall of Selective Obliviousness. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Show people like that a KKK rally posing beneath the burned, charred body of a black man and they will insist this, too, is not really racist because you just can't judge, man. This is a mentality a mile wide and less than an atom deep.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

More likely: "It wasn't the KKK it was only certain individuals within the KKK (Hence there really is nothing that can characterize groups of people because we're all individuals; the organization is blameless)."

I'm so tired of this lame argument.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Buckley's reasoning is just as comical as I remember it from the sixties. I was especially enlightened by his observation (however obtusely phrased) that fault for discrimination might lay with the Negro community.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

As I watched the debate, I thought of all of the native Britons, Gaels, and Scots who get little credit for helping to build the British empire. Caesar made his first million by enslaving Gaul.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I have a proposition. In the future, could you try to put more personal text in your posts rather than copying a whole article? I think a link to the article and some excerpts from the most important parts would suffice. What do you think?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

I can - in this case, the article was short enough that breaking it up into highlights didnt make sense, but moving forward - sure...

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Thank you for posting this video. Imagonnawatchit.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

I had never seen the debate before this, so I found it interesting -- glad you like it. 8-)