I wasn't going to post about this guy with the Obama monkey-doll. Then I watched the video again, and noticed something. There is nothing troubling about one lone racist nut in a crowd. What's troubling is the crowd. Dig how they just look on and smile uncomfortably. No one confronts him. This is the banality of evil, no? It isn't the guy doing the deed. Its the enablers who give comfort and haven to spew his hatred. On one level, I'm thankful for them. Anyone, who wants to now say that an Obama election proves that racism is dead will have to contend with this last week. And it isn't the nuts that this person must contend with---it's the crowds, the crowds who silently, and sometimes not so silently, just stand by and let it happen. They are all, to a man, cowards.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
this is just the latest in the campaign to muddy Sen. Obama's name, and cast him as being foreign and un-American. not only is this egregious, but it's very, very alarming. we are just one idiot away from a lynch mob and an act of violence.
That's guy's nothing. At least he had the sense to try to cover it up when the CBS crews caught him later. This guy, however, is another story.
There is nothing troubling about one lone racist nut in a crowd.
unless that nut has a gun and an agenda
A while back a friend and I met a woman in a neighboring condo who seemed perfectly nice, until about an hour into the conversation, when she started flashing her neo-Nazi tattoos and hurling racial epithets.
Yes, it was uncomfortable. My friend, who is Jewish, and had never met a real-life hardcore white supremacist before, quietly shit a brick. I politely disengaged myself from the conversation. She left shortly afterward, without either of us calling her out.
From your post, you'd say that we had a duty to tell this woman, who we had just met, why she was wrong, or ignorant, or whatever. To not do so would be to facilitate racial hatred. I disagree. At a certain point, the gulf between different peoples' assumptions becomes so wide that it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation about them. If you say to a self-admitted racist, "Racism is bad!" then you've accomplished nothing other than starting a confrontation. You can evangelize and knock on as many doors as you like, but you're not likely to change anyone's religion.
The reason all these people in the video just smile uncomfortably and remain silent is that there is nothing else to do. Nothing realistic. Nothing effective. And they're not looking for a fight, most of them. So what's the point?
Incertus, notice your guy's not wearing a helmet? Natural selection at work.
This is the difference between the random obnoxious conspiracy theorist found on an atv or in a parking lot, and the people fitting right in at McCain-Palin rallies. The candidates say nothing. (Or didn't for a week.) The people around them say nothing.
Imagine if the people around the nutcases would speak up and say "No! That is not what John McCain believes, it's not what Republicans believe, and it's not what I believe. I disagree with Senator Obama's policies, but passing on this garbage is vile, and I won't stand here and listen to it." Then this whole YouTube genre wouldn't exist.
There are isolated people defacing offices and making crude T-shirts on both sides. The difference is that this week, the tin-hat racists found an encouraging atmosphere at McCain-Palin rallies, and it was Republicans elsewhere, scattered pundits, former McCain endorsers, and the like, who had the guts to stand up and say "No, you aren't speaking for me."
I think you hit the nail on the head with this one.
That has been the most disturbing part of all these little incidents. The cheers, smiles, etc. No one willing to step in and say stop. It's definitely unsettling.
At a certain point, the gulf between different peoples' assumptions becomes so wide that it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation about them. If you say to a self-admitted racist, "Racism is bad!" then you've accomplished nothing other than starting a confrontation.
But sometimes confrontation is necessary. Just because you're not going to convert a person doesn't mean that you shouldn't engage them. Confronting these people is important because it tells them that they can't bully decent people into silence or submission, because that's what they're really going for. They're not trying to convert you either--they're trying to scare you, and if you don't confront them, you've validated their tactics.
I get serious cognitive dissonance when I see this thing. I can totally parse its harmful, disgusting message, but part of my brain just wants to pinch its cheeks because it's the cuddliest little Obama supporter ever.
There's just something *wrong* with racist hate-speech being simultaneously adorable. Like puppy dogs with swastikas.
This is nothing more than the republican approach of the last decade laid bare. People that aren't racists themselves use racism to their advantage.
I don't assume the rest of the people in that crowd are good, so I'm not disturbed by their lack of intervention.
People that aren't racists themselves use racism to their advantage.
To me, this is actually worse than heartfelt racism. It's like, if you're gonna deny my equal personhood, at least have the decency to believe it in your heart, y'know? Cynically exploiting it when you know it's not true is just the lowest kind of Machiavellian gamesmanship.
See TC, this is why I said in another post that you just cannot go soft on these cats... they need to be exposed and destroyed... the best way to do that is to make white america at large ashamed of them enough to ostracize them... That's not happening to any large degree as evidenced by that clip..
This is a problem the black community still has with its nutballs too...
A political party that supports this hatemongering is not a legitimate political party.
Look in the mirror, Republican bootlickers.
I'm going to say this again:
THIS.IS.WHO.THEY.ARE
That is their core. Stop making excuses for them.
@Keith: But it's moved out of the apartment and bars--which is where I think Schmidt expected this to stay. This isn't about letting a stranger rant one on one, or at the bus stop or in line at the deli, and saying "Mmmm. Huh. Mmmm" in case they're violently nuts. What's happening at the McCain-Palin rallies is that it's, well, a rally. A gathering of supporters, with now many a camera filming these representative McCain-Palin supporters.
Change the context: If you were out there with a group waving "Vote yes on 8!" signs, and one of your fellows started spewing embarrassing inanities at a camera, would you look uncomfortable while thinking "Well, everyone's entitled to an opinion"? Or would you feel the need to step up and say "Hey, this woman doesn't speak for our group. And what she's saying is wrong"? The woman, after all, will soon be out there representing your side, with you standing mute in the background. By remaining silent and letting this man--and all the other stars now gracing YouTube from McCain-Palin rallies--speak for them, they seem to endorse what he's saying. Just as McCain and Palin do when someone yells "Kill him!" and the candidate keeps right on talking, and the crowd cheers.
Context matters a lot in this case, and it's why all the "well, this Obama supporter made an obnoxious T-shirt, so it's even" stuff doesn't cut it.
Incertus:
You have a point.
But me, I'd rather pick my battles, than have to go up against Hussein the Monkey. I very strongly doubt that most of the people on this forum would have done anything differently from what the people in the crowd did.
Jim,
I don't go soft on anyone. I'm digging for answers. There's nothing hard about assuming you know, and blogging like you've never been wrong.
Change the context: If you were out there with a group waving "Vote yes on 8!" signs, and one of your fellows started spewing embarrassing inanities at a camera, would you look uncomfortable while thinking "Well, everyone's entitled to an opinion"? Or would you feel the need to step up and say "Hey, this woman doesn't speak for our group. And what she's saying is wrong"?
Make the context a little more specific. Say that you're a member of a group supporting Amendment 8 and you consider yourself fairly mainstream, and then the Phelps clan pops up with their "God Hates Fags" signs? What do you do then? (Hopefully you change your mind once you realize who you're aligned with, but that's another journey.)
T-N: You just don't get it! It's Curious George, for heaven's sake! The guy was praising Obama's intellectual curiosity! It was brave of him to venture into the hostile territory of a McCain-Palin event, and this is the reward he gets?
My question is this: Is it *always* cowardly not to engage in confrontation with racists about their behavior?
Years ago I took a summer job at a mechanic shop in a coal mine. The mine was in a very demographically white rural area, and no black people were employed. Some of the mechanics in the shop had once been skinheads and the 'n-word' was used casually and constantly. I was aghast and a little sickened at the racism, but I made my feelings known only through subtle, demurring comments. At no time, for example, did I ever let on that my girlfriend of four years at the time (almost 10 now), was a black woman.
Cowardice? It hurts me to admit it, but perhaps a little. But I can't help feeling that these mechanics were so zealously racist and fixed in their opinions that I could never have changed their minds in a million years. I couldn't have even got them to stop spouting off in front of me. I would only have changed my uncomfortable situation to an unholy mess of confrontation and anger. I still only lasted a month before quitting.
Anyway, leveling the charge of cowardice at people for their complacency is valid, I think. Any silent dissenter must ultimately be silent because of fear, right? The only problem is that everybody has held their tongue at some point in their lives. So by that measure, we've all been cowards.
I'm going to say this again:
THIS.IS.WHO.THEY.ARE
That is their core. Stop making excuses for them.
And again. This is the modern Republican party. It's been this way since at least Nixon.
Nixon.
Atwater.
Rove.
Schmitt.
Sarah Palin Parking Lot.
It would help if the George F. Wills, David Brooks, Megan McArdles et al of the world would admit this at their earliest convenience.
Keith,
I understand if T deletes my comment here, but all you have said is a description and explanation of cowardice.
Now, we're all guilty of it at different times; but any time i've let things go, I've hated myself, and I recognize that it's my fear and nothing else.
If you won't mention it to your neighbor even though your friend was clearly terrified by it, and you won't mention it when it's as blatant as the monkey and there are crowds all around, then when?
It's cowardice, and the shocking part of it is how easily everyone justifies it nowadays. Like modern life in general, and courage in particular, shame is noticeable only by it's absence.
Gosh, how could the Holocaust have ever happened?
I am going to take a contrarian approach here, to say that I am extremely satisfied to see folks doing stuff like this. We are not going to make any progress against this shit until more of it comes out of the shadows, and Obama is just the guy to make it happen.
This is not the same racism that confronted folks like John Lewis. It is the kind that is normally hidden behind the doors of these folks homes, or down at the local bar. They don't have the "courage of their convictions" that so many of the racist assholes of the Old South did, and they cannot survive out in the open like this. The fact that they are being drawn out now is a good thing.
Because the more public they become, the more easily defeated they are. The longer Obama is a vital force for good in this country, the harder it will be for them to hide behind their ignorant prejudices. I cannit wait!
Folks, this is a good thing.
Just 23 more days, and it's our turn!
I read a few of the comments and I have come to the conclusion that we are now a society of cowards. We are too busy worried about what might happen or if we will make a difference when the truth is in a situation like this one its not about the other person, its about YOU. I wouldnt care if it was a card carrying Neo Nazi there were police all over the place. You can see all of the police cars in the video! So even if you have coward tendencies at least you would have had back up. But to say that "no one else would have done anything differently" is to project your cowardice onto others to make yourself feel better. You see if you have this thing called character and this other thing called courage then you COULD NOT allow this guy to make such a racist statement right in front of you with out you at least telling him what you thought of it. People wonder how some of the worst atrocities in the history of the world have ever come to be and in almost all situations it started with people just looking the other way. Silence emboldens the worst in our society. Silence makes them stronger. And the longer a person stays silent the higher the likely hood that they will NEVER speak out against injustice. But on a different tack do you think MAYBE they didnt speak out because it had to do with racism??? Let me put it to you this way. If those same people walking in that line saw someone burning a flag in the middle of the street, or an Obama supporter with a picture of John McCain making fun of him being a POW, you could damn well guarantee that they would have shouted that person down without any regard for their own safety. So ask yourself a question.....Whats the difference between those hypothetical situations and this obvious exhibition of overt racism??? Something to think about!
"Let me put it to you this way. If those same people walking in that line saw someone burning a flag in the middle of the street, or an Obama supporter with a picture of John McCain making fun of him being a POW, you could damn well guarantee that they would have shouted that person down without any regard for their own safety. So ask yourself a question.....Whats the difference between those hypothetical situations and this obvious exhibition of overt racism???"
That is the essence of it. Either it's right or it isn't. Courage when the crowd has you back isn't courage.
Confronting strangers one on one is unpredictable and can be dangerous. Maybe women understand this better than men.
People are filming the guy. He's the next star for a day on YouTube. He's going to get called out on this.
There are reasons why people organize for dissent, good reasons.
I believe in "the power of one voice" and all that. But you better know your situation and be ready for the consequences if it doesn't go well.
James:
Not a flame, so I hope he doesn't delete it. I'm open for discussion. Maybe it is, as you say, cowardice, and I'm a coward. I don't really think so, though.
Was I afraid of the skinny little pregnant woman with the lightning-bolt tattoos? Not physically, no, although those types tend to travel in packs. The possibility of a gang of neo-Nazi thugs in the proximity of my friend's apartment was more than a little scary. (He had had a dreidel sitting on the table next to him, and discretely removed it from her sight.) So yes, there was an element of fear.
I was also embarrassed, owing to the fact that it was something slightly off-color my friend had said that had set her off.
But cowardice? It's not cowardly to avoid a fight you know you're going to lose. It's not cowardice when you have nothing to gain. You can go charging up Little Bighorn, and maybe you can avoid being called a coward, but you're not going to win any victories. It's easy to be moralistic when you're sitting in an armchair.
rikyrah writes: "I'm going to say this again:
THIS.IS.WHO.THEY.ARE
That is their core. Stop making excuses for them."
I completely agree. TNC is wrong - the grinning goobers walking by the clown aren't being cowardly. They're his fellow McCain/Palin supporters, going to the same rally he's going to. They agree with him. They're amused by him. They're not refraining from giving him shit because they're afraid. Giving him shit is the last thing on their minds. They're EVIL, IGNORANT ASSHOLES.
That's what the base is composed of and that's what the base has been composed of - as ed said - at least since Nixon's day. Tapeworms with human (well, sort of human) faces. These are people who looked at the Abu Ghraib atrocity photos and masturbated. These are people who think Matthew Shephard got what he deserved and talk about "Martin Lucifer King."
They're losing the Culture War and I hope it hurts.
I disagree. At a certain point, the gulf between different peoples' assumptions becomes so wide that it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation about them. If you say to a self-admitted racist, "Racism is bad!" then you've accomplished nothing other than starting a confrontation.
I was a punk rock kid, and the nazi's shared an interest in some of the same music and just the way things work you wound up interacting socially. I was usually wearing a Crass T-shirt and had an Irish flag on the back rocker of my leather jacket, so there wasn't a choice about confronting them. They were going to confront me. I'm missing permanent teeth over them.
However, if nothing happened and they just decided to play nice, I still didn't pretend nothing was going on. If you had a neo-nazi tattoo, I was going to call you on it. Ask you what the hell that was about. Usually they said it was something they used to be into but they got out of. I'd offer to cut the thing off for them.
I dunno, I haven't run into any neo-nazis in the last bunch of years and maybe I'd think of something more grown up to do than offer to beat someones ass, but if you are ever going to be violent isn't the appropriate scenario a freaking nazi?!
If you have a problem with the sorts of people that McCain lets into his rallies, you can always go home. I'm guessing that's what happening with McCain's rallies. When you let those guys in, the decent people stay home and leave you to your fate.
Twenty years ago I was the assistant on a photoset. During the course of the shoot, the photographer asked the art director to arrange the products on the shelves of a refridgerator in a more aesthetic way. The art director responded jockularly, "Oh sure. Make me do the nigger work."
Half my family tree was erased because people didn't speak up. But I also knew it wasn't my set, I was an organ of the photographer, and that it wasn't my place to say anything.
Then it came out of my mouth, "Bill, I'm really not comfortable with that kind of language."
Bill looked surprised. There was an awkward silence. I wondered if I had just cause my employer and my beloved mentor an account worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Twenty years later, I don't know what advice I would give to a young person in the same situation.
Yeah, I don't think this IS one lone nut.
He's just the one with the monkey doll is all. Ana Whatsherface, who has been covering the McCain campaign this whole time, said, on Rachel Maddow, that the crowds have gone from generic Republican to all-wingnut.
So here's the deal.
I don't agree with the racist nutjobs. Comparing Obama to a monkey is just infantile. It's wrong. Also wrong is the fact that in the video no one says this is offensive.
However, they do have a right to say what they are saying. I don't agree with it but as a vet having sworn an oath to "Support and defend the constitution of the united states." I will say that the constitution which I swore to uphold gives them the right to say these things and to make these comparisons.
I think that these people will be their own demise. No offense to TNC but this ain't 1968, and while I disagree with the jackass who compare's Obama to Curious George I don't think he's the guy we have to worry about.
It's an old cliche that those who fail to hear a shout will strain to hear a whisper. I think that personally racism is more destructive when it is implied rather than overt.
I recieved this email from a family friend who votes republican. I don't agree with anything it says but it is instructive to note the overall tone of the piece.
"This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind since then. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama'. I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.
I started looking into Obama's life.
Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California . He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan . During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia , next Hyderabad in India , three weeks in Karachi , Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they were in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York . It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia ? It's not cheap to say the least! Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia , he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. Why Chicago ? Why not New York ? He was already living in New York .
By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria , and a real estate developer in Chicago . Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'. About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School . Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School ? Where did he get the money for Law School ? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago . Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which is Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago . In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With All those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.
Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz , Iran ! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?
On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley, advisor to Obama, was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran . This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.
Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that were born in Pakistan ? They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contributions for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East ?
And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'. When questioned, 'he made a mistake'. Some mistake!
All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.
Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?
A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the enemy from within'!!!""
Apologies for re-posting republican vomit. However there are several things I would like to point out about the above piece of work. The first is notice the implied level of racism and xenophobia inherent in the piece. It never comes out and says that Obama himself is a muslim. However it does say that his two roomates in college were. Unfortunately the implication is that Obama, himself has "terrorist" tendancies. Most people know or at least should know that none of these things are true. However, to the person who is merely looking for someone to repeat a confirmed opinion stuff like this is golden.
Personally I am reminded of Goebbel's work in Nazi Germany so eloquently described by William L. Shrier in Berlin Diary. The Basic formula is take a bunch of unrelated "facts" that appear to be interelated and string them all together to arrive at a pre-determined position.
However to get back to the original point. The implied racism, and fear mongering of the above e-mail is far more dangerous than calling Obama a Monkey. Personally I would rather have 10,000 people be openly and overtly racist than have those same 10,000 people circulate emails like the one I recieved.
Just 23 more days, and it's our turn!
We're not There yet. Stay on target, bitches!
donovong writes: I am going to take a contrarian approach here, to say that I am extremely satisfied to see folks doing stuff like this. We are not going to make any progress against this shit until more of it comes out of the shadows, and Obama is just the guy to make it happen.
I understand where you're coming from, though I don't think "satisfied" is the right word, at least not for me. It is, in a certain way, gratifying to see Americans in the mainstream being made aware that this kind of latent xenophobia and racism is still out there, waiting for the right opportunity to rear its head. At the same time, I'm not sure this gets us anywhere in terms of convincing your average white person that racism exists beyond this kind of closeted-racist-reveals-his-true-nature incident. Making people aware of deeply subconscious, societally pervasive prejudices is going to be as hard as ever, it seems to me.
But one thing that's interesting about this is that we seem to be treading on very different racial territory than at the beginning of the campaign. I remember how early in the race, after Obama's "dollar bills" comment, the McCain campaign jumped at the opportunity to scream "race card!" The Obama campaign, at that time, very clearly did not want race to be a dominant theme in campaign. I still don't think Obama wants race to be a major narrative of this campaign, but the tables turning. The past week has brought out a whole group of marginalized, fringe racist and xenophobe extremists who are, bit by bit, coming to represent the stereotypical McCain/Palin supporter.
I expect that the people who will be most affected by this are the white swing voters who have racist inclinations but won't admit as much, even to themselves. I have met and spoken with a lot of these people, and in general they really are terrified of being seen as "racists," in no small part because they recognize the kernel of truth there. (I would argue that their whole conception of "racism" and "racists" is four decades too old, but that's a story for another day and one that I'm sure many people here are well familiar with.) As long as McCain's campaign rhetoric provided a reasonable justification for voters' subconscious racism, it could only help electorally. But the sewage that McCain and Palin were pumping underground has now burst above street level and the two of them are getting mighty dirty.
It's remarkable, too, that Palin seems totally oblivious to this. On the other hand, maybe it shouldn't surprise me that a small-time politician from Alaska with zero intellectual curiousity wouldn't recognize the perils of turning herself into a charicature of a racist, backwater trailer trash grandma with five kids and an unshakable belief that humans were palling around with dinosaurs 4,000 years ago.
I went to make dinner after reading the first few comments on this post. While I was in the kitchen, I kept wondering what I'd do in a situation like this. I came to the conclusion that I probably wouldn't say anything, simply because I literally cannot think of what to say. I suppose it'd be one thing if TV cameras were there - I could go over and say "I'd like to disagree with that person, and say they don't represent me." But what would I say to the person him- or herself? I am not interested in having an argument (or, to be generous, a debate) with someone who is overtly racist; as people have said above, I don't think the person would change their mind on being confronted. But I don't disagree that it's important to register disapproval. The problem is, I can't figure out what to say to do that. The best I could come up with was, "I'd like to tell you that you're a racist and should be ashamed of yourself." Which, I mean, sounds pretty weak.
So, my question is, what is the best thing to say in a situation like this? To those who agree that it's best to speak up, do you have any advice for me?
I've read that it's good to practice saying the sorts of things you'd say in these situations, since many people are so shocked at the occurrence of the event that they become struck dumb, and I'd like to practice. I just need help coming up with what I should be practicing.
Sorn writes: "I would rather have 10,000 people be openly and overtly racist than have those same 10,000 people circulate emails like the one I recieved. "
The same people are doing both things, of course. And there are a lot more than 10,000 of them.
The good thing is that this time around there are more of us than there are of them. So let's crush them without pity and make it hurt. They deserve it.
Coates,
I'm not going to say I've never been wrong, but repeatedly, you've tried to give slack where none was deserved.
This is a pack of lowlife, racist mofos. That's who they are. That's who they've always been. The whole lot of them.
The one beef I had with you back in the Primaries was your insistence that Billary weren't racist.
From where I was, I could have given a shit. IF you are willing to racebait the first truly legitimate Black candidate for President of the United States, what the hell do I care if you're ' actually' racist. To me, if you're willing to employ racist tactics, I'm not going to try and delineate between 'you' being racist and employing racebaiting to win. There is no difference to me. For me, it was always WORSE with Billary, cause the GOP never pretended to be Black folks' friends.
What's happening with Country Last right now? EXACTLY what I thought would happen. I just don't see any surprise. THIS is the GOP. Period.
Moe,
I'm just saying that the overt racist is the obvious one, the soft-spoken holocaust denier with a doctorate is much more harmfull.
The people in the crowd either agree with this man, are amused by him, or are afraid of confrontation.
Now I've let a lot of public disputes go uncontested because it never seemed worth my effort or I've worried about the possibility of a physical confrontation ensuing. Totally reasonable and often responsible thing to do.
But I can guarantee you, at the very least, I would not be smiling and laughing at a blatant act of racism like the one shown in this clip. In fact, by the looks of the old man featured, I'd probably assess the risk and go ahead and say something. And boy, it sure would be tempting to grab that thing out of his hands and set it on fire.
As to the question what should you do in a situation like this. Let me ask you to watch that video again and also go to the cbsnews.com website and watch that part of the video of him INSIDE the rally as well and look for one thing for me. I just want you to look and try to find anyone in that line that did something as tame as just shake their head. Literally try to find someone that shows ANY facial expression or physical expression of disapproval of what this man is doing with that monkey. Ill give you an example of something that happened with a white friend of mine (im black). He was with a group of friends and a couple of people he didnt know. So one guy tells a racially insensitive joke. Half of the room immediately stopped everything they were doing and just got up and left. My friend told the owner of the house they were at that it wasn't his kind of party loud enough for everyone to hear. Now did I wish he went and confronted the guy full bore and ripped him a new one??? Of course. But I was more than satisfied with the response he did take because there was NO mistaking why he was leaving and that he did not approve. Confronting racism isnt always about shouting, finger wagging, or pushing and shoving. Many times its just making it plain that you do not approve.
Realistically, if you did confront the guy:
Keith: Hey, that's really offensive. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Guy: Offensive? You need to grow a pair.
Keith: That monkey is racist.
Guy: It's not racist. It's a monkey.
Keith: You're stirring up racial hatred and fear of the other with that monkey. It's jingoistic and racist. You're invoking Obama's middle name to stoke anti-Muslim sentiment. You're basically comparing blacks to monkeys.
Guy: I'm not saying that. You're saying that. This is just a monkey. Geez, you liberals get offended so easily. I didn't realize the Politically Correct Thought Police were going to be here. If you love Obama so much, what are you doing here?
There is no point in confronting him.
There is a point. It's not to change his mind. It's to let him know that there are people who aren't willing to stand for that crap. If no one calls you out when you do that kind of stuff you will assume that most people agree with you.
The McCain/Palin campaign is stirring up the crowd by letting them believe Obama is a terrorist. Isn't there some responsibility on the part of the McCain/Palin campaign to deny that he is a terrorist, lest violence against him ensues? McCain has already done this, sort of. Palin seems to ignore the harm she is doing.
Half of the room immediately stopped everything they were doing and just got up and left. My friend told the owner of the house they were at that it wasn't his kind of party loud enough for everyone to hear. Now did I wish he went and confronted the guy full bore and ripped him a new one??? Of course. But I was more than satisfied with the response he did take because there was NO mistaking why he was leaving and that he did not approve. Confronting racism isnt always about shouting, finger wagging, or pushing and shoving. Many times its just making it plain that you do not approve.
Like your friend, I'm white, and I've been a similar situation. A few years ago I was hanging out with some friends and some acquaintances (all white) and somebody made a remarkably racially insensitive comment. I immediately said that I was uncomfortable in this atmosphere and got up and left. It completely killed the mood of the get-together and the person who made the comment apologized to me later. Even expressing disapproval in the mildest way can have a profound effect when people know deep down that what they're doing is wrong. These days, the people I spend time with aren't the type to say things like that.
@KT:
I have been surrouned by folks like this my whole life, and I have to say that I woud not have confronted these folks in public at all. I have done it, and rarely had it come out well. As angry as that asshole would have made me, I would not have confronted him there. Not from any sort of a lack of courage, but by virtue of choosing my battles. You can't shame an asshole like that in a crowd of his contemporaries - they feed on it.
The path I have chosen for the last many years is to fight it one person at a time. And, I am proud to be able to say that I have won over a number of people I would have originally thought hopeless. Hell, my in-laws are voting Obama, and they were born and raised prejudiced - and I mean old school haters.
That's why I am so glad to see these guys like the "monkey doll man" taking off their masks now. All the better to know them, and wear them down.
That is what HOPE is all about!!
KT asks: "So, my question is, what is the best thing to say in a situation like this? "
How about, "Why don't you go home and shove that monkey up your ass, Klanboy?"
But then I tend to be impolite, I'm told.
Keith writes: "There is no point in confronting him."
Maybe you can elevate his blood pressure and bring his inevitable stroke/heart attack one day closer. If you're lucky, it might even happen right there on the spot.
Sorn replies: "I'm just saying that the overt racist is the obvious one, the soft-spoken holocaust denier with a doctorate is much more harmfull."
True, but the Steve Sailers of the world manage to straddle that divide.
There is no point in confronting him.
The point of confronting him is right there in your imaginary yet realistic dialogue.
You're not listening to yourself.
Here's a race free example:
I was standing in line waiting to pick up at my kids' elementary school, and one mom in line was loudly ranting to another mom about a parking ticket she'd received while helping out at the school. She wasn't going to pay that ticket! She was going to go into the principal's office and demand that the school cough up funds for her ticket, because they wanted parents helping out!
The other mom was doing the "Yeah, mmm" thing, and the rest of us kept quiet or talked amongst ourselves. I did the same. I've often wished I spoke up--I was definitely not in physical danger--because this sort of entitlement irritates me, and I know she was forming the justification "I was explaining this in line at pick up, and everyone agreed with me!"
But it didn't really matter. I'm sure the school hasn't started paying parking tickets and speeding fines for would-be parent volunteers. However, if she was representing our school or parents in some way, getting out there in front of a camera to explain how we all thought things should work, then I would speak up even at the risk of being on camera. Parents are a good example, after all--how many parents in here have been infuriated when a "typical" parent from out town or demographic or other subgroup is quoted as though she speaks for us all? If this was an individual in an interview, we couldn't do anything about it. If it was an individual spouting off right in front of us while we stood there playing "other group members, not disagreeing," then we bear some fault.
To be silent in these circumstances anoints the jerk as your spokesperson.
Coates,
I'm not trying to be hard on you or insult you in any way, but I feel about this the same way I did reading Sullivan about 'the fall' of John McCain. John McCain was ALWAYS there. Yeah, he was tortured, and out of it, he got the Senate Seat. But, look over his life. He was overindulged and always thought he was 'entitled'. He was 'entitled' to go to Annapolis. He was ' entitled' to his Senate Seat. He was ' entitled' to have the sweet, rich, hot young thing. And now, he felt he was ' entitled' to be President of the United States.
I have problems with folks who believe they're ' ENTITLED' to be President. That's the same problem I had with Hillary. I never said she wasn't qualified. I said she wasn't ENTITLED to be President - big difference.
For all his bullshit talk about putting Country First, and being his own man, John McCain is a Punk.Ass.Bitch.
Barack Obama bucked EVERYONE and went his own way. He chose who HE wanted to be Vice-President. He was going to win or lose on his OWN TERMS.
When the moment of truth arrived, McCain didn't MAN UP. He didn't choose Ridge or Lieberman - which would have been bold choices. IF he were SERIOUS about a female VP, he had an entire GOP bench of QUALIFIED GOP WOMEN that he skipped over, making fools of them.
He folded like a cheap suit. He sold himself to the religious right, lock, stock and barrell. He insulted this country by placing THAT WOMAN anywhere near the possibility of becoming President of the United States. He showed, above all else, that he doesn't give a rat's ass about this country, and that it's all about HIM.
When the chips were down, what has he been pulling? The whole questioning of Obama's patriotism. I have a beef with anyone White questioning Black folks' patriotism. That earns an automatic - go F-yourself from me.
This is who the GOP is. Benefit of doubt, this group has not earned.
There is no point in confronting him.
He did get confronted. When the camera pointed at him said CBS News, his dick shrank in a hurry. He knew what he had done at that point and got ashamed and handed off his little doll to some kid.
Rik,
Did you miss this post during the primaries?
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/we_dont_care_if_you_like_us.php
Also, we're just going to differ on this. You have to give me specifics on what you're talking about, but on the broader point "of giving slack," we just see it differently. I don't think I give slack or go soft on anyone or anything--ever. You always know where I stand.
The reason all these people in the video just smile uncomfortably and remain silent is that there is nothing else to do. Nothing realistic. Nothing effective. And they're not looking for a fight, most of them. So what's the point?
Ummmm ... can't they walk out? That is what I'd do. I wouldn't start a fight or anything. I'd just walk out.
What gets me is the companion video (I saw it on Crooks and Liars) where the guy realizes he's on camera for a major newscaster and just sheepishly takes the sticker off and hands the monkey toy off to some little kid. Like he was totally holding it for him, just a coincidence, sticker? What sticker?
And I think that puts me with you on the "just one guy," not because I dismiss him as a racist nut, but because I dismiss him as a coward. He wouldn't pick up a gun because he'd have to look at the people he was shooting; he wouldn't make a bomb because he'd be afraid of the construction, and getting caught. I'd rather every racist was that racist, because at least he'd not be racist when he felt it was unsafe.
The most important lesson of the whole Harry Potter story is this: when the Death Eaters march, you run out of your tent, wand up, ready to resist. Idleness is not an option.
That was Death Eater stuff, and the people walking past flunked the test.
I'm sure my kids won't always realize it's testing time, and I'm sure they'll fall disastrously short on some tests they recognize. I certainly have.
But if they see what's happening, they'll hear my voice.
They'll know I'd hear their grandparents.
And they'll realize the only right thing is to act like the Order of the Phoenix and walk right into the fray.
I'm late to the party, I know, but there is one path to take. I have taken it all my life. I grew up in a small southern city where my classmates -- in the late 70's thought it was cute to have a N***** shooting permit from the local KKK office, which I passed every day on my way to school.
I had a hard time in school because I confronted them. I got paddled by a grown man more than once when I was 15 and 16 years old. One of the men who paddled me then complained to my parents that I didn't respect him. I led a student walk out and my parents didn't support me, but they didn't support the thug either. He went on to sell shampoo as a fund raiser at high schools.
I have had a boss that said he liked my lipstick so much he would like to see it around his dick. Later he claimed that he wouldn't pay me for the vacation time I had earned because he thought I would bomb his office. (This was in the early '80's).
I have managed to get my current boss to stop calling people "oriental" instead of Asian. When my boss floated the idea that African Americans are lazy, I confronted her. I have confronted a warmongerer via employment email and almost got fired.
Who was it? Henry?
Man up. I have all of my adult life -- since I was 16.
If you need some help, the next time you run into a racist, I can help. I have survived.
I've watched it twice and everyone is smiling but no one looks uncomfortable to me. I think that is the sad part, no one's a coward, just complicit. To be a coward here you have to recognize what's happening is wrong and in this situation, sadly, I don't see that.
TC, please delete the double post, if you can. My screwup I know, but please?
Man up. I have all of my adult life -- since I was 16.
Amen.
It's not that scary confronting these people.
Michelle,
That was worth saying twice.
You are right Ed. I've risked more in the past year or so than I think I would have before, but it is worth it.
Thanks Sporcupine.
Some folk have commented about the futility of calling out a racist, since the rabid hater isn't going to change their ways.
There's another reason to call out in a crowd. It's not about the person expressing hate, that person may be beyond redemption. It's about connecting to others in the crowd -- giving courage to other antiracist people who may have been uncomfortable speaking up, and dissuading other more timid closet racists from paying the social costs of overt bigotry.
The guy in the video is un-American.
That's a broad brush you paint with. The guy with the monkey is an idiot racist relic of the past.
That you seek to tar everyone else in the line with the same brush reveals much about your partisan nature.
You're making pretty harsh judgments about people you don't know, never met.
I've met plenty of kooks in my life. This guy is a nutter. It doesn't mean that everyone has to challenge them at every moment.
But when it comes to nutters, there's no use confronting them. It's not like this guy is stirring up the masses. And it's certainly not like this guy could ever be convinced to change his beliefs. And you can be certain any attempt to silence this guy would create more of a scene and make him feel even more justified in his quest, whatever it may be.
Would you have us throw him in jail for is idiotic and mean beliefs? Would you have us get in his face and call him on his loonies, thereby giving him even more attention which is exactly what he wants?
No. Most normal people, be they Republicans or Democrats let the loonies occupy the spotlight for 10 seconds and then politely ignore them.
I agree with Adina, that the crowd makes the difference over the interview with the lone drunken racist on her atv. If you remain silent while the man next to you screams "he's a terrorist, kill him!" then you accept him as your spokesperson. If you remain silent while the conspiracy theorists in line give their interviews, then as you stand nervously in the back of the camera frame, you implicitly accept him as your spokesperson.
Sam, most people do remain quiet. That does not mean, in the present atmosphere of "he's a dangerous unAmerican terrorist and someone should do something," that that is all right. "I may have said nothing, but I was feeling uncomfortable!" is weak sauce.
You don't have to confront every racist crank in a bar. But when the guy next to you in line for a demographic-defining event is speaking for you, maybe you should mention that he's waaaaaay off base and doesn't speak for you. Not trying to convince him, but trying to convince the people on the other side of the camera, and in line. As Adina notes, a few more people in the crowd may then speak up. And a few more who agree with the guy will remember that this stuff is not acceptable, and maybe they don't want to face their workplace and church in a few days as the silent background yes men.
The best way to confront such a guy is to let him know they are bigots, but in a non confrontational way.
"This saying nothing about Obama but everything about YOU"
Maybe it’s just me but I feel like the guy represents something worse than plain old evil … a cultural expression of an economic dead end. Pennsylvania’s bleeding the young and talented and college educated as if they’re staging an escape from that monkey guy’s basement and in a very real way, they are. I mean, if I were running Iowa’s or New Mexico’s or Colorado’s start-up slash workforce recruiting effort, I’d drop that moron in an ad campaign and take the rest of the year off.
Tessa said, "And boy, it sure would be tempting to grab that thing out of his hands and set it on fire."
Tessa's comment reminded me of something that happened a couple of months ago.
I was waiting to get my hair cut at a place where I had been going for a few months. I had been waiting about 45 minutes and I was not in a good mood.
Finally, the woman is ready for me. When I get to her station there is an issue of "The Globe" sitting there. Obama is on the front and there is some ridiculous headline that I can't remember.
I picked up the magazine, ripped off the cover and tore it to shreds. I said, "Why do you buy this trash for people to read? Don't you know that some people actually believe this? Maybe if you were to buy some decent magazines your clients would surprise you. Maybe they are smarter than you think."
We went on to talk about the election and it turned out that this woman knew very little about it. More than anything, she seemed disconnected from all of it. When I left, I took the copy of "The Globe" with me.
I felt kind of strange about it later, as though I were out of control.
Also, my hair is a huge mess from that haircut and I'm still trying to grow it out.
Rikyrah's right, this is who they are.
Who's gonna confront this guy? He's at a rally where somewhere between 90% and 95% of the people there agree with what he's saying, most of them strongly.
I actually like it when people show their asses like this. At least you know where they stand.
If you're gonna be a racist, fuck it, might as well be about it instead of hiding it from the world. I wish everybody did that.
I've been to Johnstown. There may be some lovely people there (may be) but it's scary ass white folk central. With all the gun-toting rednecks in Johnstown, Palin fits right in.
Seven years ago, during the protests before the Iraq War, you condemned the lefty guy carrying the huge banner comparing Colin Powell to an ape, right? Don't remember that?
Unless I overlooked it . . .
No one seems to have mentioned that there's at least a tenuous Limbaugh connection here: during the primaries, a caller to Limbaugh's show called in to say that his daughter had told him that Obama looked like Curious George, and Limbaugh didn't discourage this, aside from telling the guy that he (Limbaugh) shouldn't be laughing at this. While I can't say that the guy in this video is a Limbaugh listener, it is nevertheless true that we do tend to move about in circles of opinion that conform to our own thinking. It becomes incestuous and, in extreme cases, tone-deaf to how it sounds to those not moving in those same circles.
To borrow a line from an episode of A Different World, Obama is these people's worst nightmare: an educated black man.
In conversations like this, I am often reminded of two quotes.
1. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good [people] do nothing." - Edmund Burke
2. And the quote "First they came . . . " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...), " . . . when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out."
It is possible, that that person will always be racist. Perhaps, once he realized he was on camera, he realized the idiocy and bigotry of what he did. But the importance of speaking up, is to show, not only the person that is committing the act, but everyone else, that people are willing to stand up and say when something is wrong.
And that maybe, if they see something that someone is doing, that is wrong, because someone else spoke out once, they too will have the courage to speak up.
To borrow a line from an episode of A Different World, Obama is these people's worst nightmare: an educated black man.
Or to borrow a line from The Wire: Obama's the most dangerous thing in the world, "a n*****r with a library card."
If these "polite" people are willing to stand around and do nothing now, who's to say what atrocities they'll ignore in the future. Not everyone who supported Bush (back when it was "kewl") was objectively pro-torture; most just chose to turn and look the other way.
Evil isn't in the actions of a few, but in the inaction of many. Hanna Arendt had people like the bystanders (in the video) nailed dead to rights.
WHile it would have been admirable if someone would have told the guy to shut his pie hole, that kind of courage is rarely seen on any side. The right used the same tactic the left is employing today. In the run up to the war, many large anti-war rallies had people with signs that were anti-semitic, yet they marched. Conservative blogs would then show the pictures to try to make the anti-war movement look like anti-semites or cowards.
Democrats haven't always been profiles in courage when confronting bigotry
http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/obama-supporter-blasts-gays-at-gospel.html
Actually, the guy with the monkey is quintessentially American. And George Will, Barone, Hume, Cokie would not find this offensive in private. Look at what they've excused in their professional lives. Reagan was a no holds barred racist who launched his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. :Like Palin, he was a bigot w/ a smile. That Palin has not been denounced by every major American newspaper on the front page tells the story. That Reagon, the unrepentant bigot is lionized in this country gets to the heart of what is going on today.
One of your colleagues has compared John Lewis' statement about Wallace and McCain rhetoric to -- it doesn't matter. The GOP and its hacks will never change.
Perhaps, once he realized he was on camera, he realized the idiocy and bigotry of what he did.
What you're describing there is that most racists are proud of their racism but know that there are social consequences to feeling that way. They're the kind of people who will drop a whispered n-bomb in company they trust, or lower their voices when they say the word "black." They're ready to blame people of color for the subprime mortgage meltdown and for crime and every other social ill, but they do so in reasoned, knowledgeable voices. They're polite racists, in other words, and they think that makes them so much more respectable than those dirty Klan members.
Digging for answers TC?
I'm sorry, the past 300 years haven't provided enough empirical evidence for you to generate a suitable response?
Sometimes, measured and thoughtful, "trying to find answers" approaches are what gets you slapped on both cheeks and kicked in the rear end. At a certain point, the gloves gotta come off.
These people should be exposed on camera, their names published, their places of employment published and let the free market work itself out from there. You'd be amazed how underground this nonsense would go if that was the approach taken.
Eh. This is like arguing that Obama should have done more to argue against what's-his-name.
"HE HAD HIS BUTT IN THAT PEW FOR 20 YEARS!!! HE DID NOTHING!!!"
Those arguments are silly, the argument that people walking past in the parking lot should confront the person most likely to involve spittle in his arguments... and the fact that they didn't means that they are "moral cowards"...
Eh. I'm unmoved. This is not to say that the guy isn't a (censored) (censored) (censored) who deserves to live in a universe with a deity who will send him to eternal torment where people like us can watch his torture as part of the pleasures of paradise...
But making judgments about everybody else there because they didn't do anything about the nutball who showed up?
Eh. This hardly requires holocaust-level rhetoric.
The others don't look like they're smiling uncomfortably - that's a projection on your part. To me, having lived around these very folks all my life in rural western PA, having heard the way they talk and knowing how they think, I'd say they're smiling approvingly. If they have any discomfort it is because they aren't doing it themselves - they probably feel cowardly for not being willing or able to join him in his public display of what they personally think and feel. If anything, they are proud of him and ashamed of themselves for not standing up to the elitist, all-powerful "A-rab." This is, of course, a projection on my part, but again, a well-informed one...those people are acting exactly like the people who attend my family's reunions.
Jaybird has it exactly right.
Dear Mr. Coates,
I read your post last night, and I don't know what else to say but that I woke up thinking about this man and what you said this morning. I thought about the fact that these people weren't IN a rally, they were going into one (or coming out, it doesn't matter). Therefore, they were in a somewhat safer position to confront the guy if they chose to. I don't think Republicans are all devils and Democrats are all angels by any stretch of the imagination. However, it is notable that not one person did stand up to this guy and say, "Put that away. It doesn't speak for what we believe in." It just seems like a lesson we should have learned by now. I just feel kind of sick thinking about this. You're right, that's all I can say.
"I'm sorry, the past 300 years haven't provided enough empirical evidence for you to generate a suitable response?
Sometimes, measured and thoughtful, "trying to find answers" approaches are what gets you slapped on both cheeks and kicked in the rear end. At a certain point, the gloves gotta come off.
These people should be exposed on camera, their names published, their places of employment published and let the free market work itself out from there. You'd be amazed how underground this nonsense would go if that was the approach taken. "
Dude, I'm a writer--digging for answers is what I do. There are plenty of spaces across the web where you can find people "taking the gloves" off--however you define that. I don't find that sort of thing interesting, but I'd never dream of going to their sites and telling them that what they should be doing is "digging for answers."
Each man has to chose his path. Mine ain't the bomb-thrower's--and when I walk that way, I almost always regret it. If your looking for a bloggers who wants to publish names and expose people on camera, somehow I don't think you'll have trouble finding one. Moreover, for like 15 bucks a month, you could do exactly that. It really is easier than ever. But you won't find it here. I can only be what I am.
Eh. This hardly requires holocaust-level rhetoric.
Are you sure. Look at that guy, how he's acting, what he's saying. Where do you think the super awful shit starts, anyway?
"Where do you think the super awful shit starts, anyway?"
When people start pointing out that we live in times too dangerous to allow free speech or free assembly.
Where do you think it starts?
I never comment on blogs, but this discussion fascinated me. I notice that, unless I missed it, there's at least one other approach that no one's mentioned. Everyone in this discussion is labeling the guy with the monkey as the Problem - one of the Thems in the endless battle of Them vs. Us.
There actually is another way, and Obama is committed to it. It's to take on the role of Fellow Human Being. It's to dare trying to reach the guy as a person who needs a hand instead of dismissing him as Other. It's the essence of nonviolent resistance. You name and challenge evil and unjust acts in all their forms, but you don't demonize any person. You separate out the behavior and the patterns from the actual person.
In situations like this , I like to think of the guy as a difficult uncle. So I want to start by connecting with him.
With a stranger, it's useful to start with questions, truly curious questions about what he's doing and why. And really listen to the answers, to understand, not to look for an opening to zing him. There's got to be a bond in order to get a picture of why he's behaving the way he is. Only then can you know what might be effective in shifting his attitude.
I am not necessarily arguing that it would be effective to take it on in this particular circumstance; many readers have made excellent arguments pro and con and that's a decision each individual has to make. But I can imagine ways you could start a dialogue right there. And whatever you choose, you can start by working on your own attitude and judgment.
The key to this approach is that you have to do the work on yourself until you can honestly acknowledge that you are not superior to this guy and that you can find a bit of compassion for him. You're going to go for the essential human being that's hiding inside him beneath the garbage of the racism he's learned. Once you get there, the possibilities for reaching out to him are endless.
And the reason to do it? Because we actually want to change people's hearts, and we can't go where we want to go unless we take everyone with us.
I had to chew on this for a while- the following may seem a bit disjointed, but here goes…
First, as to confronting racism- my experience is that a calm statement that you are offended by someone’s words or actions will usually cause the overt behavior to cease- and almost never change the underlying attitudes. The way we change the attitudes is analogous to water eroding a rock- one drop at a time. Which is why I always try to respond appropriately when confronted by racist attitudes, policies, or language- I want to get as many of those drops in there as I can. If we all do this (and many do), the cumulative effect is positive, if frustratingly slow.
A small anecdote- when I retired from the Army, I went to work as a supervisor in heavy industry. I was taken aback to find the term “colored” still in vogue among the local workforce- and this is a facility with a fair number of black employees, including in management, and many Hispanics as well. When I heard the term used, I didn’t get irate- just gently explained that it was a bit dated. If you spin up the missiles every time you see or hear this stuff, you will wear yourself out- and this is a marathon, not a sprint.
Having said this, I feel “cowards” may be an oversimplification. Unfortunately, it is simply not human nature to go out on a limb in such a situation- hell, ANY situation. Doesn’t make it right, but we are socialized, to a degree, NOT to confront. I think this tendency will only get worse, not better, as we interact more and more in forums like this one, and not face-to-face. What we struggle with is that the racists often have no problem voicing their opinions; the rest of us have to learn to express ours.
Damn, Annie- good post. I think we're on the same page, but you beat me to it.
"Where do you think the super awful shit starts, anyway?"
When people start pointing out that we live in times too dangerous to allow free speech or free assembly.
Jaybird, are you suggesting that confronting the man is taking away his right to free speech and assembly?
Because that's all wrong. That man has the right to say what he wants in public, and others have the right to publicly disagree with him.
Keith, I appreciate your comment, and agree up to a point. But sometimes being confrontational has its place, even if you're not going to "convert" the other person to your way of thinking.
Suppose you are a McCain supporter in the line with this jerk. Here are possible ways of handling it:
1) You can ignore him.
2) You can stare coldly at him and say nothing. At least you don't grin or shrug your shoulders.
3) You can say to whoever is holding the camera, "Not everyone here agrees with this guy."
4) You can say to the guy with the monkey, "People like you are doing more to harm our cause than anything done by the Obama campaign."
5) You can say to the guy with the monkey, "Grow up."
6) You can say to the guy with the monkey, "Do you really get pleasure out of doing this?"
7) You can say to the guy with the monkey, "Fuck you, you stupid piece of shit."
None of that means you have to disavow whatever your reasons are for preferring McCain. But there are many ways to send a message that you reject this kind of behavior.
I would also add something about being unable to "convert" the closed-minded. There's always hope. There were plenty of people who grew up in the segregated South, who eventually saw the light. It did not come easy. That's all they ever knew. But somehow, they recognized that segregation and institutionalized racism were wrong. They grew up.
My guess is that such a transition for many racists took a long time in coming. Many seeds had to be planted before they grew into fruition. But eventually, people can change.
If you had said to the neo-Nazi, "We don't agree," or "We reject that kind of anti-Semitic hatred," or "We want nothing more to do with you if that's what you really believe," maybe that would have planted a seed. Maybe that would have been one incident among many that shook the person up, and began the process of change.
No, I don't think that confronting the man is a violation of anyone's free speech or free assembly.
Nor did I say it was. You asked where I think the super awful shit starts. I answered with where I think it starts.
I do think that people out there saying such things as demonstrated in this video are vile... but not representative of anything requiring holocaust-level rhetoric.
So, once again, I ask you: where do you think the super awful shit starts?
3) You can say to whoever is holding the camera, "Not everyone here agrees with this guy."
Since the person holding the camera is using this to make Republicans look like brownshirts, the odds are very high that a statement of that nature would end up being edited out.
TNC, you continue to try and push this meme that conservatives have a lock on bad taste and "hatred."
It makes you look ridiculous when it is so easy to find examples from the left that make a guy holding a monkey look like child's play.
You are losing all credibility as someone who can look at a topic objectively. Hey! You could work in the media!
Jay writes: "Actually, the guy with the monkey is quintessentially American. And George Will, Barone, Hume, Cokie would not find this offensive in private. Look at what they've excused in their professional lives. Reagan was a no holds barred racist who launched his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. :Like Palin, he was a bigot w/ a smile."
Reagan's imaginary "welfare queens driving Cadillacs" line isn't even seen as racist by Repiglican apologists. Not much really does offend them as long as it's aimed at minorities or the poor. Hell, the Atlantic's own GOP "voice" derided a poor New Orleans woman as a "welfare duchess" last year because she had a large TV.
Reagan made it okay to be stupid and bigoted in public again, I guess. That's why he's Saint Reagan in the eyes of these idiots.
DougEFresh,
I keep seeing you post that article about Donnie McCurklin. The funny thing is our link takes me to an article that references a NYTimes article. So I decided to go to the source. Guess what I found...
His inclusion had drawn public criticism from gay activists who wanted Mr. Obama to cancel his appearance. Mr. Obama did not, but issued a statement a few days ago saying he strongly disagrees with Mr. McClurkin’s views and that he has tried to address what he called the homophobia among some black voters.
Tonight there was a small vigil of about 15 or 20 gays and lesbians, who stood quietly across the street as people filed into a big auditorium here for the last of three campaign-sponsored concerts (and the only one to feature Mr. McClurkin). The whole controversy might have been forgotten in the swell of gospel sound except Mr. McClurkin turned the final half hour of the three-hour concert into a revival meeting about the lightning rod he has become for the Obama campaign.
He approached the subject gingerly at first. Then, just when the concert had seemed to reach its pitch and about to end, Mr. McClurkin returned to it with a full-blown plea: “Don’t call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have suffered the same feelings,” he cried.
“God delivered me from homosexuality,” he added. He then told the audience to believe the Bible over the blogs: “God is the only way.” The crowd sang and clapped along in full support.
The political implications of his performance are not clear. The concert-goers we talked with afterward were generally more focused on making allowances for Mr. McClurkin’s past homosexuality than on anything about Mr. Obama.
The Obama campaign had appeared to be caught off guard by the reaction to inviting Mr. McClurkin in the first place, and it may have been surprised tonight by the degree to which the singer focused on himself. The other speakers and singers had avoided referencing the controversy. Even an openly gay minister whom Mr. Obama had invited after the fact to try to appease his gay and lesbian critics spoke so early that few people heard him.
Still, canceling Mr. McClurkin’s appearance might have created more problems. Mr. McClurkin’s support for Mr. Obama could signal to some black evangelical voters that race and religion are more important than Mr. Obama’s support for gay rights.
The campaign has tried to turn the situation into a demonstration of the candidate’s big-tent acceptance. It did bring together some supporters from the gay community and the black religious community who wrote a joint letter a few days ago saying that Mr. McClurkin’s statements had been “deeply hurtful and offensive to many Americans, most especially gay Americans.”
At the same time, it said, “a great many African Americans share Pastor McClurkin’s beliefs” and “their religion prevents them from fully embracing their gay brothers and sisters.” It lauded Mr. Obama “who speaks truth in love to both sides.”
Tamping down that conflict between two important Democratic constituencies has been an unwelcome distraction for Mr. Obama as he tries to revitalize his campaign.>
Thats right DougEFresh it turns out that Obama DID speak out against Donnie McCurklin. AND members of the gay community issued a statement that they appreciated the fact that Obama could express his dissagreement with Donnie McCurklin's positions on religion and the gay community while still speaking "truth in love" to both sides. You see he was trying to unify people not divide them. You really don't want to open the can of worms about the GOP and their rejection of the lesbian and gay community do you? Next time stop letting yourself getting spoon fed bullshit and do your own research. Thats the only way any of us can come anywhere close to getting the unfettered truth!
Since these folks have the right not to leave their comfort zones, and because the internet allows them to pretend-interact with others in ways they can always control to fit their perverted tastes, they never will learn a thing. Ign'ance is here to stay, kids, and in the internet age it will get worse - it's probably the greatest irony of our time.
When I was younger, I was in plenty of demonstrations, of the sort where occasionally people would start doing or saying things on the lefty side that I didn't agree with (and that weren't part of the organizers' plan, folks who were freelancing). Sometimes I confronted, and sometimes I didn't.
The small group who started chanting "the answer is not pacifism, but revolutionary internationalism," I didn't confront, but rather joined in the first alternate chant that I actually agreed with. The folks who were going to burn the American flag, I jumped into the fountain where they were standing and soaked my pants, to go talk them out of it, because I knew how people respond to burnt American flags, and didn't want that provocation at this demonstration. And so on.
But the one thing that was true, at a lot of these demonstrations, was that it wasn't just up to freelance people like me, whom to confront about what. The people organizing the demonstrations would recruit and train monitors who would watch set areas of the demonstration for stuff that was off. I myself was a monitor (and trained and instructed in just what I was to do) at one large demonstration in San Francisco. And part of what to do was to immediately notify another, coordinating, monitor if I saw anything off, so we could address it safely as a group, not unsafely as me the tiny woman confronting some maybe aggressive person.
If I were organizing a pro-McCain rally (fat chance), I'd plan in advance for the possibility that people might show with racist stuff like the monkey, and that I'd have people ready to go over and tell them, no, get that monkey out of here.
where is the evil there. Talk about being hypersensitive. Geez.
"TNC, you continue to try and push this meme that conservatives have a lock on bad taste and "hatred.""
Poolside,
Please show me the quote where I've said that "conservatives have a lock on bad taste and hatred." If you're going to charge that, then back it up. Don't change the subject. Don't change your argument. Don't erect strawmen. Demonstrate--specifically--what you've charged me with.
"You are losing all credibility as someone who can look at a topic objectively"
I don't know how to break this to you but, I'm a liberal, and I write like one. There isn't an objective bone in my body. I don't know why you'd think there would be.
Ok, I don't get it. Couldn't the monkey reference also be for stupidity? Didn't people also make a bunch of monkey references with Bush too?
I personally didn't see anything racist here, but then again I'm not *looking* for anything racist, either. Y'all should try it sometime.
Perhaps it was a trial balloon, but the racist "nuts" shouting out their hate at McCain's rallies are, in my view, plants. Republican rallies are not known for their spontanaiety. On the contrary, they are highly orchestrated events, with those in attendance carefully screened. Dissenting T-shirts and bumper stickers are usually enough to get one ejected or denied entry. Thus the security personnel had to have been told not to interfere with someone shouting in response to McShame's or Palin's taunts because they didn't remove anyone.
I'm not paranoid, just realistic. These incidents were no accident. Just more evidence the Republican campaign is in a shambles, and is willing to try anything. Including appealing to the worst elements of their party, and starting a forest fire of racist hate.
I'm late to this, but to those who think you can't change people, I have a story to tell.
My Mother-in-Law was raised in the backwoods of PA. She was a bona fide racist. One day (early in our relationship), she went on a tirade about an co-worker of hers, a black man with a poor work ethic. When she began to speak in epithets, I stopped her.
"Have you never met a white person with a poor work ethic?" I asked her. We then got into a conversation about racism and its consequences. Turned out that no one in her sixty some-odd years of life had ever confronted her about her presuppositions (she's a rather large and intimidating woman). She sincerely did not understand the stupidity of racism until somebody pointed it out to her.
Later, she and my husband had a conversation along similar lines. A few months after that, she had a bad day at work, and went on a tirade in my husband's presence. Before the epithets came, she stopped herself, took a deep breath, and apologized to my husband for even thinking that way. This was the first time she had ever apologized to my husband for anything.
Today, we have her almost convinced to go out and vote this year for the first time in decades. If she does vote, it will be for Barack Obama.
Racism isn't something we're born with, it's something we learn. Though it's hard to do, we can unlearn it. You can change people's perceptions, but you'll change nothing if you remain silent. Like others have said, you don't have to be mean or confrontational. Sometimes cool logic and a willingness to discuss difficult or painful subjects like adults will do the trick.
Next time stop letting yourself getting spoon fed bullshit and do your own research. Thats the only way any of us can come anywhere close to getting the unfettered truth!
I am glad you brought this up, which is why I chose to link the McClurkin dust up to a liberal site and liberal criticism. If you think the link was unfair towards Obama, that is on the liberals, because he caught a ton of heat for his decision from the left wing of the aisle. If anything, I was spoonfed bullshit about liberal hatred from the same people that are spoonfeeding you that McCain is a hater. You seem to be telling me that liberal sources are full of crap.
If you can remember back a year ago, Obama was slammed by the nutroots for giving a platform to an anti-gay bigot. But since we are in the final weeks of an election, all has been forgiven.
Also, it is your position that McCain should speak "truth in love" to those who think Obama is a terrorist and a commie?
FreshEDoug writes: "nutroots"
Consider the source. FreshE still thinks John McCain is a man of integrity and that Sarah Palin is truthful.
Possibly more people like me should be going to McCain rallies. Is there any place you can get a T-shirt with Lionel Hampton on it? He was more of a Nixonian Republican, so likely wouldn't embrace McCain, but I like jazz and besides which they seem to desperately need different kinds of people at these. (Being under four-foot tall and in a wheelchair I'm pretty "different" anywhere I go.)
Some very good points throughout this discussion. For what it's worth, here's what I think:
Too often in our society we stand back and let rage build up inside of us before we confront someone. By the time we have decided to confront the person, we are so mad that all the other person sees is a crazed person. While it may be beneficial to sometimes be angry, most of the time it accomplishes nothing. That's not to say that I agree that "there is no point" in confronting the guy. I think it's our duty (not just our right) to confront this guy and the fact that a camera is there is irrelevant. Silence is implicit agreement, just like when someone tells a racist joke. If you don't tell them it's not okay you're implicitly saying, yeah, I'm racist.
While it might be hard to confront people like this, oftentimes they back down really quickly.
As has been said up-thread, all that's needed for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to say nothing.
I disagree with people who say there is no point in confronting the guy and it has nothing to do with the presence of the camera
I personally didn't see anything racist here, but then again I'm not *looking* for anything racist, either. Y'all should try it sometime.
I'd say you've gone beyond "not looking" for anything racist straight to "actively ignoring" anything racist.
I am waaaay late to this party!! Time and again I have watched this video clip on news talk shows....is it best to keep beating this subject into the ground? I suppose some people need the reassurance day after day, after day, after day...etc. These types of mentally challenged persons are caught on camera which to me is a good thing....now they can be "watched" in the future should anything happen, they'll be the first in line to be questioned? Probably not.
But this is America where "freedom of expression" is allowed....whether we agree or disagree. I am happy to know that I realize just how ridiculous this type of display is, and sadden that some people have not progressed beyond the 1800-1900's mindset. They have chosen for themselves .... to be a manipulated breed. Puppets, if you will. A small mind is a dangerous commodity which evidently some in our great country still hold on to and invest in. These type of people can't hold an intelligent conversation, so they openly show their stupidity towards mankind. Sorry to see this particular citizen (?) chose "Curious George", though. That character has been used in children's books as a inquisitive, wanting to learn and expand his brain power, learning new lessons to better himself....not be stiffled or labeled in such a manner and be degraded in this fashion. However, on the flip side of the coin, "Curious George" may have been very proud to have that Obama sticker placed on his head....both he and Obama seek to find better options in life. Unfortunately, and I'm pretty quite sure, this was not the intended view this man was trying to portray. Obviously the man, holding this stuffed animal, never read books to increase his mind's threshold. And those doing nothing?...."Stupid is as stupid does." as Forrest Gump's mama used to say.
Lift up any rock buried in the groud...you'll find where this type of person lives.
Nice comeback DougEFresh. Instead of acknowledging that you are spreading bunk you try to point to the article you linked as being from a liberal website which somehow absolves you of anything? Let me give a newsflash. None of us should take ANYBODY at face value. Trust but verify comes to mind. I am not a face painter nor am I a registered republican nor democrat. I have enough good common sense to be able to research each candidate on my own and do something as simple as clicking on the source link that was provided in that article so I can read for myself. If you aren't doing that on left wing sites, right wing sites, blue sites, red sites, green sites, or ANY kind of site then YOU are in fact allowing yourself to get spoonfed bullshit. I would no more take the word of someone on Dailykos as I do the word of someone on NRO. Only sheep do that and if the description fits wear it. Now lets go back to the original point. You were absolutely wrong about how Barack Obama handled the Donnie McCurklin situation. Do you acknowledge that or will you hide behind some other false equivalence? I look forward to NOT hearing your response.
FreshEDoug writes: "nutroots"
Consider the source. FreshE still thinks John McCain is a man of integrity and that Sarah Palin is truthful.
Sorry Moe, I am not a member of the creative class so I can't think up brilliant nicknames like some on the lefty blogosphere churn out. No gems like Chimpy, John McSame, Grampy Insane, Der Mitten Fuhrer.
I also do remember a couple of Senators who recently said McCain is a man of integrity, two guys you might be voting for named Obama and Biden. Or are these men of integrity lying. (you probably don't want to answer that question, do you) Biden even said he wouldn't mind serving for McCain.
If you're going to charge that, then back it up. Don't change the subject. Don't change your argument. Don't erect strawmen. Demonstrate--specifically--what you've charged me with.
Back it up?? Change the subject? You can't figure out what I've "charged you with?" Surely you are smarter than that.
You've put up three or four posts that were selectively edited by "documentary filmmakers" to show so-called conservative thugs. Yet you never once mention the hatred and vitriol that have flowed out of liberals in recent months -- all of which are far worse than anything you've shown here. Surely you are well read enough to notice what the left was saying about Sarah Palin? And what was said about George Bush over the past eight years??
In other words, when you wax poetic about the "banality of evil" above and how no one sounds off to stop the guy with the monkey, you might as well be talking about yourself. Have you ever called out any liberals for their hate?
Didn't think so.