« The difficult case of Tony Dungy | Main | A Diplomat's View » On George Wallace and bigotry14 Jan 2009 05:58 pm
A few folks called me out for saying Wallace wasn't a bigot. That's fine. But I just want to be clear that this isn't me doing Wallace a favor. It actually reflects Wallace's political history Alabama. Wallace started out as racial moderate, refused to join the Dixiecrats then switched to race-baiting as a strategy after being, in his words, "out-niggered.' I'm not defending him, in any respect. He was an opportunist and a race-baiter. But "bigot" doesn't really apply to Wallace.
Comments (68)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
TC,
You've got Wallace figured exactly right, and it is an important distinction to make. Both bigotry and pure opportunism are evil, but they're different kinds of evil, and thus require different sorts of responses. Bigotry, a la , Jesse Helms, is about hate of the other, whereas such naked opportunism is about a narcissistic love of self and power. Whereas when fighting a bigot, one is best served attacking the message, when fighting an opportunist one can attack the messenger just as effectively.
I've spent some time in Kosovo, and when I try to explain the war there and throughout the Balkans to Americans, I always frame Slobo as Wallace, he would always go where the pursuit of power took him, even if it was into hell itself.
I don't get it, it seems a distinction without a difference to me, and unless you can give me some better examples of how this applies than George Wallace and Slobo...I'm just not getting it...
Personally, I tend to put more stock in people's actions than their words. You can say whatever you want and yet no one can ever know what is in your heart. But your actions speak volumes.
As Scott Fitzgerald said (in a slightly different context), action is character. You are what you do.
Wallace and Slobo acted like bigots. Just because they say they were doing it out of expediency and not hate...
Does bigotry have to mean hate, or just intolerance? Because even if we assume that Wallace didn't hate black people, he was clearly intolerant. Same with Slobo. Is this a case of it depending on what the definition of is is? Or am I just missing something?
But actually, Wallace didn't act like a bigot, he just talked like one. That's what TNC is talking about when he pointed to the historical record. So I think you proved the opposite of the point you wanted to make.
Steve,
He also voted like one. Thats action.
So being a hard-line segregationist is just talk? Standing in front of a school so black kids can't learn is just talk?
Foulness,
Read the entry linked. Civil Rights Leader JL Chestnut called Wallace "the most liberal judge" he'd ever practiced in front of.
Please don't confuse not calling Wallace a bigot with some sort of attempt to let him off the hook. To the contrary, you could argue that Wallace was worse than the bigots because he knew better. He was a coward who manipulated rank ignorance for his political gain. There were people who seriously believed in white supremacy and would fight for it no matter what. Wallace, as history proved, fought for what advantaged him.
Rape and molestation are both sex crimes. They aren't the same thing. Saying they aren't the same thing doesn't mean that one, or the other, isn't so bad. The difference isn't in quality of evil, its in the actual definition.
What the hell -- here are some distinctions with examples, to use words effectively.
The single most trivial (and weirdest) bit of racialism I've ever come across was in a locker room once, when I brushed the soles of my feet before I put socks on. Somebody said to me, you know -- black guys don't do that. I must have looked puzzled, and he explained that he was absolutely certain that black guys never wipe their feet before they put their socks on. (I'm not making this up.)
I'd say that's a "prejudice" -- only because I've never made a study of it, I can recall only one-counter example (but that's enough to bust his theory), but I simply cannot imagine that whether you brush dust off the soles of your bare feet before en-socking 'em is a racially-correlated trait, like some diseases.
But I don't think it makes the guy a bigot, although I gotta admit, I found it odd and never regarded him in the same way after. Having particular prejudices - indulging 'em, expressing 'em -- can indicate bigotry.
So let's say it was something more important -- that he 'knows" Irish guys are drunks, or Italians get insane when they're angry. It's a "prejudice" when it has no consequences, but it's "bigotry" when it affects the way the guy deals with Irish or Italians.
And he's a "bigot" to the extent he's impervious to evidence, ESPECIALLY if his approach to argument, problems with or conflict about his prejudice is hypocritical: tolerance for him, but not for anybody else.
Suppose I had said to the first guy: you're nuts, but I'll take your money -- ten bucks says of the next three African American guys who put socks on in this locker room, at least one of 'em will brush the soles of his feet first. (Sheesh, it's just an example.) Suppose I'd won the bet -- how he REACTED to such a trivial demonstration that his prejudice is false -- false premises, pre-judging contradictory facts -- is what would determine that he's a bigot, rather than simply, oddly ignorant: he might have said, well -- THOSE guys weren't really black.
That's why it is a trait of bigotry to say "some of my best friends..."
Which is where Wallace was, as I recall. He was one of the last hold-outs, and his 'rationale', such as it was, wasn't based on white supremacy as such, but on the idea that separate but equal was actually GOOD for African-Americans, that "segregation forever" wasn't anti-black at all, but PRO-white, which was a good thing for everybody, including blacks, who shared in the "southern way of life..."
He was more of a hypocrite than superstitious, I think -- it was pure politics for him, which made it all the more pathetic in the end.
In the cases of both Slobo and Wallace, they had histories of opposing the form of bigotry they later came to embrace.
Wallace first ran as a moderate in the foot steps of fellow moderate Jim Folsom, he lost after, among other things, refusing to embrace the Klan. It was after that loss that he made his vow. Similarly, later in his career, when being a hardcore segregationist was no longer politically useful, he found some modicum of "regret."
Slobo, similarly, famously spoke out against a report by the Serbian academy of Arts and Sciences attacking Albanians and promoting Serb nationalism in the mid 80s. Later, when Serb nationalism became his ticket to power, he completely turned around on the issue.
The central argument is not that these people didn't do horrible things, and stand for horrible things, but what there motives were. You have to understand your enemy. Both men strike me, more as amoral actors than immoral ones. That is probably just as bad, maybe worse.
At the very least neither had any core beliefs, for good or evil, that superseded the lust for power.
One can make an argument that Wallace's hatred of convenience is even worse than hatred with conviction. Irrational hatred is, if nothing else, sincere, unlike hatred born of raw political calculation.
So bigotry is based on a person's motives? I'm not saying you guys don't understand this better than me, maybe it's just that I don't want to understand it or don't care to. It's too fine a line to me, and seems like you're just trying to peer into someone's heart, which to me is just an impossible, fruitless task.
My understanding is that Bigotry isn't necessarily irrational hatred; it's intolerance and has to do with how you treat people.
Wallace seems to fit this defintion: not only did he practice intolerance by keeping those kids out of school, but he spread it, was in many ways it's chief spokesman!
To me I have trouble differentiating Wallace not being a bigot with Rick Warren saying "well, I have gay friends and am not a homophobe."
Curious how this fine line on bigotry would effect views of say Jefferson, or Lincoln, or Dead Presidents, or Mel Gibson, or Farrakhan.
I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass here, I guess I'm still not getting why "motivation" has anything to do with being a bigot or not.
Foulness: does it make sense to you to say that Wallace's seemingly bigoted actions were undertaken for oppurtunistic reasons? None of this is a defense of Wallace's character. It's no defense of him to say that even tho he didn't have a real animus towards people based on race, he was willing to pander to people who did in order to get votes. he wasn't someone who was blinded by predjudice or ignorance, as many otherwise good people in his time and place might have been, he was someone who KNEW BETTER and still CONSCIOUSLY CHOSE to do evil things.
It makes a difference because its part of how we come to have a better, fuller understanding of history. I don't see how that doesn't make a difference.
So, Wallace's history as a liberal judge under Jim Crow who called at least 1 Negro male "mister" when most white people referred to them as boy trumps everything else he's done after that, eh? Trumps all the racial slurs??? Trumps the fact that he became a staunch segregationist and the poster child for Jim Crow racial oppression? So, one can be a race baiter without being a bigot? Being opportunistic excuses one from being a bigot? One can be a racist without being a bigot? C'mon Coates! You can't be serious. Stop trying to be so deep on ish that doesn't require a second look. I understand you need a paycheck in this prolonged recession but don't toss out BS. You're starting to lean towards a Gen X Ward Connerly or Shelby Steele. Has McWhorter rubbed off on you? Please share your opinion with Brother Paul Coates. I'd be interested to read his comments on this discussion. Since he lived in a Jim Crow segregated Baltimore, hopefully he'll be brutally honest with you.
I enjoy most of your writing and remember you from my days at Howard (remember Zaki, Reggie R., Roxanne L., Professor Tolbert, etc). Nonetheless, please check a dictionary to avoid writing BS in the future.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
not to pile on, but if you look up "bigot" most of the definitions refer to feelings, attitudes, etc. that one is blindly attached to. Wallace started out as a moderate and then became a racial hard liner after losing an election because he was more moderate on race than his opponent. that's not blind attachment, that's pandering.
but this is also a great oppourtunity to share a lyric by one of my favorite bands: the Drive By Truckers
WALLACE from the Southern Rock Opera
[Scene: set in Hell, September 1998. Told from the Devil's point of view]
Throw another log on the fire, boys, George Wallace is coming to stay
When he met St. Peter at the pearly gates, I'd like to think that a black man stood in the way.
I know "All should be forgiven", but he did what he done so well
So throw another log on the fire boys,
George Wallace is a coming…
Now, he said he was the best friend a black man from Alabama ever had,
And I have to admit, compared to Fob James, George Wallace don't seem that bad
And if it's true that he wasn't a racist and he just did all them things for the votes
I guess Hell's just the place for "kiss ass politicians" who pander to assholes.
So throw another log on the fire, boys, George Wallace is coming to stay
I know, in the end, he got the black people's votes, but I bet they'd still vote him this way.
And Hell's just a little bit hotter cuz He played his hand so well
He had what it took to take it so far
Now the Devil's got a Wallace sticker on the back of his car
[ Now the Mule-ettes walk out in devil horns and tails, raise their hands in the air and sing:]
"OH ------ ALABAMA…"
........whoa!!! Kismet!!! I was just about to bring up the DBT's thing--- that's a great song- everybody should check out "The Southern Thing" spoken introduction just before the song....it's very sharp.....
Your arguments do not hold water. It's like saying Hitler had no personal animosity towards German Jews because he had fought in the trenches w/ so many in WWI and only came to believe Germany lost the war because Jewish interests sold Germany to the Allies. He had to be intolerant to begin w/ to be susceptible to the idea.
Being a political opportunist thatcomes to(back to) playing on race(Wallace)or ethnicity(Slobo)means to me you simply chose to hide your bigotry for personal gain. If you are not a bigot you do not roll that way at all.
Jupiter:
Part one of the definition that you posted ("a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices") actually supports what coates is saying. Abandoning a moderate position for an extreme one in order to win elections isn't about being obstinately devoted to one's own opinions, or about being obstinately devoted to anything, except power.
Now part two ("one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance") works for Wallace if you cut out "regards" and put all the weight on "treats." But I don't think that having to redact this much of the definition you're using really does much to support your point.
There are lots of ways to be evil. take the time to know your enemies so you don't underestimate them.
"Such is the duality of the Southern Thing..."
I know TNC has posted requests for "white music" recommendations. I can't say enough good things about the Drive-by Truckers. "Southern Rock Opera" is brilliant, and their most recent album, "Brighter Than Creation's Dark" is even better.
Actually, this distinction makes Wallace a worse person than a standard-issue bigot who presumably believed all of the ugly crap. Wallace was willing to promote an evil he didn't really believe in to gain political power. Special place in hell, etc. etc.
Yeah, in general i can't recommend that band's work enough. I personally like The Dirty South best, but I love most of the new one, and really, the way that The Southern Rock Opera deals with southern history and society is pretty much unparalelled in pop music, or at least in white pop music.
I'm really having to restrain myself to keep from posting the whole damn album, but I will throw out one more verse, from "the Southern Thing"
Ain't about excuses or alibis
Ain't about no cotton fields or cotton picking lies
Ain't about the races, the crying shame
To the fucking rich man all poor people look the same
You're simply discussing the difference between immoral (racist because that's what is believed by ones self) and amoral (racist because that's what is useful to ones self). It's a useful distinction, especially if the surface layer is so deceptive and hard to get past.
Nobody considers Herr Shickelgruber evil because he called himself a Socialist...
You have to understand your enemy. Both men strike me, more as amoral actors than immoral ones. That is probably just as bad, maybe worse. --Melendez
Beautifully put. It's a much colder thing to deal with, and to disentangle. Though when mores change such a man will be at the front of the new pack....but he'll have done more than many dedicated believers to push back that attitude shift, too--his power is built on maintaining that attitude. No amount of "why negroes/non-Serbs/gays/Jews/other scapegoat group are human, just like us, and as deserving of rights" is going to minorly ping their beliefs, because what they're doing is not based on that belief. What they're doing is based on what they believe will keep them in power, and if tomorrow that means claiming that all houndstooth print scarves are symbols of terrorism there they will be, denouncing houndstooth as fervently as Michelle Malkin.
bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance --Jupiter
But this definition dovetails with what Coates and others are arguing. Wallace was not obstinately devoted to a prejudice; he was obstinately devoted to getting elected or, more broadly, to power. Passionately scapegoating a convenient minority was a means to that end, not an end in itself as it was for many an unrepentent racist.
It's like saying Hitler had no personal animosity towards German Jews because he had fought in the trenches w/ so many in WWI and only came to believe Germany lost the war because Jewish interests sold Germany to the Allies. He had to be intolerant to begin w/ to be susceptible to the idea. --Robert M
I don't think Hitler ever said anything of the sort, so he doesn't work as an example. If he had--if he was once a broadminded, tolerant individual, writing or speaking about how we are all human, Jew and Gypsy and German, straight and homosexual, etc--and then 180ed when he decided espousing other ideas would get him to power, that'd work.
Again, no one is saying that coldly using and stoking a conveniently chosen prejudice as a means to power makes a leader a better person than someone who is sincere in his hatreds. But it makes him a different person: The answer to "why did he do this?" is different. The answers to "how do we fight him" or "how do we avoid repeating this in the future" are different. So for considering history, they matter. Not as apologia, but as truth, and as strategy.
I said:
A few folks called me out for saying Wallace wasn't a bigot. That's fine. But I just want to be clear that this isn't me doing Wallace a favor. It actually reflects Wallace's political history Alabama. Wallace started out as racial moderate, refused to join the Dixiecrats then switched to race-baiting as a strategy after being, in his words, "out-niggered.' I'm not defending him, in any respect. He was an opportunist and a race-baiter. But "bigot" doesn't really apply to Wallace.
I also said:
Please don't confuse not calling Wallace a bigot with some sort of attempt to let him off the hook. To the contrary, you could argue that Wallace was worse than the bigots because he knew better. He was a coward who manipulated rank ignorance for his political gain. There were people who seriously believed in white supremacy and would fight for it no matter what. Wallace, as history proved, fought for what advantaged him.
Jupiter says:
"So, Wallace's history as a liberal judge under Jim Crow who called at least 1 Negro male "mister" when most white people referred to them as boy trumps everything else he's done after that, eh? Trumps all the racial slurs??? Trumps the fact that he became a staunch segregationist and the poster child for Jim Crow racial oppression?"
I challenge you to show me where I said that. Produce a quote that makes that claim. I am sorry if this sounds a bit defensive. I'll likely regret writing it in the morning. But few things set me off like strawman arguments.
Draw a box and divide it in four parts. One axis is prejudice and the other axis is prejudiced actions.
Your bigot has prejudices. He may or may not act them. He may or may not however be on the willingness to act on it side. Maybe he's scared of getting called out and he can be counted on to do non-preducial things because it's socially unacceptable in his strata to act like that. So you got your crypto-bigot and your regular bigot one side of the box but on different halfs of the "willing to act on it.
Wallace was the opposite of your crypto-bigot. He's on the other side of the box. He knows better, but his social group will punish him for acting according to his morals.
This is actually an important distinction because it's the difference between prejudice and racism. Wallace was a racist, not a bigot. The racist is actually the more dangerous guy no matter what he privately thinks.
I realize this analogy may not be a perfect fit, but...
If, say, a politician is a closeted homosexual, but favors anti-gay politics for the sake of votes, isn't he more of an opportunist than a bigot?
I've read all these comments, and Coates in particular, and I don't believe Coates is trying to let Wallace off the hook at all.
But I think these semantic games about what a bigot is don't get us anywhere. The definition of bigot includes the words "or treats" and you can't just ignore that part of the equation. Clearly Wallace treated blacks badly, he was the leader of people who treated blacks badly, and that makes him a bigot in my book, no matter what he used to believe or his regrets later.
To say Wallace wasn't a bigot but just a politician looking for expediency doesn't fly to me, because it requires you to look into a man's heart and ignore his actions, which I think is an impossible task. What he said before doesn't mean squat to me. What he did matters. The way he treated people.
If it walks like a bigot, and talks like a bigot, it's a bigot. To me.
After having thought this over a bunch, I really do feel like the "he did it because of politics" excuse for Wallace is just as wrongheaded and plain wrong as the "it was just my job" excuse Nazis gave after the concentration camps were discovered.
But of course, I understand everyone here especially Coates is not defending Wallace by any means, but rather arguing/discussing the semantics of the word bigot. And despite my frustration and disagreement, I do think it's helpful in the end I guess because of the disagreements over Gay Marriage.
And as someone who felt free to call Tony Dungy a bigot in these comments, I do have to say I don't think my rhetoric is very helpful, and think we are lucky to have a leader in Obama who understands that calmer heads will prevail, and that we need to engage, even with those who have hurt us or our friends the most, because that's the only way we move forward. So while I believe Rick Warren is a bigot, I don't think the best way to deal with that is to publicly attack the guy at every turn, but rather engage him, the way Obama and Melissa Ethridge have.
Thanks for this discussion, this blog is a wonderful thing first and foremost because Coates is a man with a true gift for language, but also because he shows great integrity, and I think that's evident in the type of commenting community he's developed.
PS - There was a TNT or HBO movie about Wallace awhile back, sort of Angelina Jolie's coming out party, and it was quite good for a TV movie, worth checking out if this period is of interest to anyone.
The Foulness: So while I believe Rick Warren is a bigot, I don't think the best way to deal with that is to publicly attack the guy at every turn, but rather engage him, the way Obama and Melissa Ethridge have.
I would define "engaging" as "challenging through dialogue" rather than "making excuses for", which is what Obama and ME have done with Warren.
And I do think there is value to calling people on their bigotry, provided that you're specific about why you're using that term. Warren, I'm sure, thinks he's not a bigot because he wouldn't murder a gay man or rape a lesbian, or because he's not Fred Phelps. But by defining only the most extreme actions as expressions of bigotry, we're effectively saying that as long as you're not an actual Klan member, you're not racist. It gives the people who are bigoted and who genuinely don't believe that blacks/queers should have the same rights as "normal" people a pass, because hey--we're not as bad as those guys, so we can't be bigots!
It's not an excuse, it's an explanation. It doesn't require looking into his heart, it only requires reading his history. It's not semantic games, it's what words mean. Wallace became the leader of a bunch of bigots by acting like one, after he lost an election because his postion wasn't bigoted enough. People willing to do that are the ones that you really have to watch out for. I'm not saying that it's "just political expediency" I'm arguing that politiclaly expedient support for race hatred is worse than blind or unreasoning or ignorant race hatred, because it's harder to guard against, fight, or fix.
Here's why I keep coming back and trying to get this distinction across. Support for Jim Crow in the south by whites wasn't a monolithic thing. Some of those folks were full of hatred, some were simply ignorant, some really thought that it was the way the world had to be, a few probably really did think it was better for both groups (see "ignorant")some thought things needed to change but were too scared of that change to speak up. Many were scared of losing their own privileged position, and were had these fears aggravated by white supremacist activists.
some of those people could be, and were persuaded that segregation had to end. some were so obstinate in their hatred and ignorance that they simply had to be overpowered. But I think that folks like Wallace, who made the political calculation to try to keep fear and race hatred alive in the electorate for their own personal gain did more to keep the fight against integration going than the real, convinced bigots would have been able to do on their own. Wallace's defenses of segregation were all designed and intended to appeal outside of purely racial grounds, which gave people who might otherwise have been persuadable more rationalizations to resist integration, to resist the changes that they feared.
Look, you can have your own definitions for these words if you want, but I hope you see that this isn't about letting anyone off of any hooks, its about having the right hook. it's about getting history and social change right. it's about understanding the enemy.
Since we are on the subject of definitions, how about a definition of "racism"? (and I'm not just asking about what happens to be printed in your dictionary...)
Peronally, (and probably a lot of people out there share this view, I imagine) "racism" is essentially "bigotry" based on race.
It's pretty common, however, for people to thow racial "prejudice" into the definition as well (bigotry, as I would define it, by definition includes prejudice, but prejudice does not necessarily include bigorty).
Furthermore, there is a segment of the academic/progressive community which defines "racism" as incorperating elements of power and control. (By this definition, theoretically John Doe may vehemently hate blacks and think them inferior but as long as he remains marooned, alone on a desert island the isn't technically "racist", correct?)
Even more radical are the guys that want to define "racism" as participation (ie living with in) a racialy supremecist system/society. By this definition being white in America = being racist. (Thanks Univ. or Deleware!)
Can`t say I care for the last two much; the last one is just dogmatic BS. The second to last... well, I understand that a discussion on racism needs to talk about its relationship to power - its not very useful to talk about just rascism (as I have defined it) alone - but I'd be wary of lumping the two together as resolution is key to understanding. The second I struggle with, mainly I think, because its hard to believe that a person who says "all blacks are/do X" wouldn't go out and act on that prejudice, or that believing that blacks were in a different category would serve as a foundation for other/future prejudices and eventually bigotry... The dividing line seems to depend on whether or not a value judgment is made. That is, "Blacks are inferior to whites" seems racist (verily, the very essence of racism) while "Blacks like chicken" seems merely ignorant and misguided.
From a practical stand point, "prejudice" is generally much easier to combat than "bigotry" which is, by definition, intractable. The question is, when talking about race, are they both "racism"?
There's another way to look at the not always clear distinctions between a bigot, an ignoramus, and an opportunist, that factors in Wallace's meaning, and not just his character.
Playing Jimmy Hoffa in an HBO pic, Jack Nicholson explains something about people (which, ironically, sets up how one of the Teamsters guys turns state's evidence on him later): "A real grievance can be negotiated, but an imaginary one? A slight? That sonuvabitch will hate you until the day he dies."
Wallace's influence on American politics is all about imaginary grievances -- "they" are out to get you, so "send them a message", the whole 'pointy headed intellectual" shtick that he did. He didn't invent it, but he pretty much gave the techniques their modern form -- Nixon followed Wallace's lead with his Southern strategy, that's where Lee Atwater came from, and, well, everything Sarah Palin says about the media could've been said by George Wallace (and probably was).
Distinctions between bigotry, prejudice, ignorance, and opportunism are only useful if, yanno, you can USE 'em, so parsing the terms is sorta pointless in the abstract.
But I'm often surprised at how useful distinctions are -- a guy like Dungy, a football coach, might talk a good game about how he'd try to convert a linebacker from his immoral gay lifestyle: but I'd bet money he wouldn't if the guy was All-Pro caliber and a leader. Some of the worst racist opportunitists in American life courted African American votes by the end.
It's a negative lesson, but I dunno an ickier person in the last half-century of American politics than Strom Thurmond (a useful comparison for Wallace), who was perversely proud in the last decades of his career that he got a simply amazing level of support from African-Americans -- because he delivered pork to them: they were a constituency, after all.
That's a sign that for all the jargon, it's achievements that count: Thurmond failed, so the good guys killed Jim Crow. It's major irony that's how Thurmond got to even TRY to redeem himself -- and killing Jim Crow matters a lot more than whether you describe Wallace (or Thurmond) as a bigot or an opportunist.
Worth keeping in mind when ya work for gay rights, including "marriage", civil unions or whatever the hell you want it called.
"From a practical stand point, "prejudice" is generally much easier to combat than "bigotry" which is, by definition, intractable. The question is, when talking about race, are they both "racism"?"
I think that they are. But I also think that "racism" is not exactly the same thing as "race hatred." it's "race" -"ism.": an actionable system based on beliefs about race, or on the belief in race as an inherent quality. so, sports commentators talkign aobut blacks having an extra bone in their foot, or being "bred for endurance" isn't race hatred, but it is racism since it depends on a belief in inherent racial qualities for any kind of coherence. Same for "natural rhythm" and any of those other so-called "positive stereotypes."
Furthermore, there is a segment of the academic/progressive community which defines "racism" as incorperating elements of power and control. (By this definition, theoretically John Doe may vehemently hate blacks and think them inferior but as long as he remains marooned, alone on a desert island the isn't technically "racist", correct?)
I was trying to take a stab at that. I think I fucked up own attempt at the vocabulary. In the jargon I believe prejudice is differentiated from bigotry on this measure:
The bigot acts, the prejudiced thinks. It's not a matter of one is better than the other, it's *why* they act. It's not about fried chicken or straight up racial doctrine.
The prejudiced guy sees his unwelcome group come in the door asking for a job and wants to throw him out. If he tosses the resume in the trash he's a bigot. If he knows that throwing the most qualified applicant's resume in the trash is going to get him fired or looked at like trash around the office so he smiles and acts nice and hires him he isn't. (I know these people exist).
Someone without the same load of racial baggage, interviews someone from the unwelcome group, wishes he could hire him, but he knows his boss will flip out if he does. He throws the resume in the trash. He's not prejudiced, he's a bigot.
One is fucking up peoples lives and one is asshole.
Strawman argument? I understand the point you are trying to make. I just disagree. And I'm not in any way saying that you are defending Wallace. You've stated that you are not. So, cool your jets Coates. Your blog is your archive. If I was quoting you, I would use quotation marks to denote such. My comments were questions based on your conclusion. Questions trying to understand how you came to such a conclusion. Now everyone has fallen into a semantics game, philosophizing on whether or not the racist George Wallace was a bigot because he was moderate on race issues earlier in his life. Has anyone heard of practicing racial bigotry?
Although you are not defending Wallace, what you have indirectly done is paint him as some sort of more benign racist. A racist is a racist is a racist. A moderate just plays the middle on issues. A moderate racist is still a racist. The only really difference is that he won't engage in physically lynching Black people. He'll even toss some crumbs their way as long as they stay in their place. But he'll still support keeping the social order (system) in place that oppresses them.
I mean I can argue that Wallace sacrificed his moderate views on race for the greater good of Alabama. He needed a racist platform in order to get elected to push the change that Alabama needed which was improving education and attracting Northern investment to create needed jobs. I could compare Wallace to Jesse Helms and say see he's not really a racist/bigot because Helms genuinely hated Blacks and all people of color to the day he died just like his father. Wallace just pretended to hate Black people for political gain but really didn't hurt nobody and even apologized for his wicked deeds or I should say repented before he met his maker. GTFOOH
But I'm not going to get further involved in a debate on this because I know the audience here at the Atlantic... It's pointless. Which is why I'm directing my comments only at you.
This is fucking hopeless, good luck, TC.
Jupiter, I'm an Atlantic reader, and I agree with you. Wallace's motives aren't relevant to the issue of whether his deliberate oppression of blacks makes him a bigot or not. Deliberate oppression on the basis of race makes you a bigot/racist. His motives may be relevant to another issue, but I don't agree with TNC on this one.
In sum ,TNC is close!
At the time Wallace had a national spotlight and the fact that he was a highly skilled politician is often lost. Politicians tend to be opportunistic. Notwithstanding John Lewis recent remarks that were great for his purpose, he overstates the point. For those it doubt check out Lester Maddox from the great state of Georgia.
Also, at that time what is now called the Civil Rights Movement(March on D.C.; Selma & Birmingham;Bus Rides; CRA of '64 & '65; SCLC; School Desegregation etc.) was at it's high point. It would have been a bit much to expect Wallace to do brunch with Nicholas Katzenbach or to have fried chicken in whole or part with Rev Joseph Lowery and Dick Gregory served by Lester Maddox. The PR would have been a bit too negative, ya mite think.
Overall Wallace as all political figures must be viewed in the context of their time. The fact that I have always found interesting(to my knowledge) is that he was never sternly criticized by the citizen of his home state. But he did put on some hellious speeches; my father enjoyed listening to Wallace as his speeches gave cause for joyous laughter. The point being he knew Wallace was giving folks a bunch of B.S. and he was very good at it. NOTE: I did not say he believed the speeches or supported them.
Comparing Wallace as done by most of the post is too far off the mark. Frankly, most of you are miles off the road(too much psycho-babble). Wallace has been and will remain a handy symbol for the the depravity of race in the American Experience; terms such as racist, bigot, and the various illustrations are a bit weak at describing what Wallace was as well as what he represented. For my money the two current U.S. Senators from Alabama( Shelby & Sessions) make Wallace look like a saint. At least it could be said he recognized that pot holes always filled as best as possible that effected the most people was better than screaming at those dogs that jus didn't hunt....
Come on, TNC, you can't put so much stock in a Wikipedia entry. Read Marshall Frady's book on him, at least.
I want to readust my earlier comments. I will by that Wallace was a bigot, on the grounds that actions count and this is a semantic argument that obscures more important issues--why do individuals oppose civil rights.
However, I remain skeptical that he truly hated black people. I think he was merely indifferent to the suffering he inflicted as long he gained power. Segregation was not an end for him, it was means.
In the end, while his name is forever associated with segregation (as it should be) what George Wallace truly stood for was George Wallace. He was the sort of sociopath that ends up in politics, and I hope he rots.
But I'm not going to get further involved in a debate on this because I know the audience here at the Atlantic... It's pointless. Which is why I'm directing my comments only at you.
Posted by Jupiter | January 14, 2009 11:11 PM
Some might call that sort of ducking the argument weak sauce. What exactly do you mean, you "know the audience here"? It's a reasonably diverse and even fractious bunch, and pretending that you are too good to make a case to us is pretty arrogant. Either explain honestly just what you mean by your remarks about people here, or apologize and back off.
See, I think that Wallace's deliberate oppression of blacks makes him evil. But it doesn't make him a bigot because the term itself speaks to motivations and not just actions. Oppression isn't necessarily part of the definition of bigotry. Oppression can stem from bigotry, and bigotry can enable and support oppression, but the two aren't necessarily causally connected.
I don't know, it seems like some of y'all just want to have one, all purpose word to sweep up all of the bad guys with. Fine, but you're doing a disservice to the complexity of history. Even assholes can be complicated.
Jupiter,
I thnk you are misreading. Saying that Wallace knew better but manipulated the bigotry all around him in the South for political purposes doesn't mean he is a more benign form of racist, it means he is worse, much more dangerous than a simple racist. The crowd that lynches a man is made up of lots of people who individually choose to do evil, they are each acocuntable for their own acts, the demagougue who lights the match that gets the crowd going is the most guilty party.
Look at this way: the ignornant, uneducated masses who grew up believeing that blacks are some sort of other who shouldn't have equal rights were racists and bigots and a major barrior to civil rights, political leaders in the South who knew better could have been leaders in the Civil Rights movement, if like Wallace they instead said "I can use this hatred for my benefit" then they were the biggest barriers to the Civil Rights movement.
What TC is saying exactly matches my beliefs about Wallace. Richard Russell thought that decent society depended upon whites keeping blacks down, and that his mission on Earth was to ensure that they continued to be able to do so. Wallace didn't believe anything of the sort, but he pandered to people who did in order to get elected. Note that Wallace was able to apologize for the evil he'd done and change his ways. I can't imagine Russell doing that.
We can argue about the correct name for Russell vs. Wallace or which is worse, but they're not the same thing.
Mike- yeah, i think that's exactly right. And I'm definitely not arguing that it's a more benign form of racism. But understanding that different kinds of people with different ideas formed a united front against integration is crucial to understanding the struggle to desegregate the south. This is about making an intellectual distinction based on historical evidence, not about picking one form of racism as more benign than any other.
Wallace was __% bigot, and the rest dick.
Jupiter writes:
"But I'm not going to get further involved in a debate on this because I know the audience here at the Atlantic... It's pointless. Which is why I'm directing my comments only at you."
Can't make the argument on the merits, so you go from strawman to ad hominem. I asked for proof, and you offered none. You simply proceeded to argue with what you wish I'd said, not what I actually wrote.
Moreover, if you really "know the audience" and didn't want to engage, don't comment. There's a giant "e-mail Ta-Nehis"i sign to the right. I answer virtually all e-mail. I'd gladly answer one from a fellow Bison.
But don't make a weak claim, fail to substantiate it, and then blame the people in the conversation. Like I said, If you object to the audience, don't engage. Otherwise,you're just a guy railing against McDonald's, having, mere minutes ago, downed a Big Mac.
One thing that always bugs me about the way we use words like "racism" is how it's like being pregnant or black: no such thing as a little bit, and it denies diversity.
Wallace is simply too hypocritical to be a good example for nuance -- so for contrast, try Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt.
No less than Frederick Douglass said that of all the powerful people he met, Lincoln was the only one who treated him like an equal -- a huge compliment to give in those days when race wasn't exactly a nuanced discussion. Yet Lincoln said hundreds of times that he didn't consider blacks to be the equals of whites.
Or TR, whose book "The Winning of the West" is widely (and I think, unfairly) considered by many modern scholars to be the epitome of a racist apology for imperialism, if only because he constantly refers to the "races" of European stock Americans chasing the "race" of first peoples at a constantly moving frontier.
Yet one of his first acts as President was to invite Booker T. Washington to dinner at the White House -- a mark of genuine intellectual as well as political respect, and a major scandal at the time.
The point is, Wallace was capable of something a bigot is not supposed to be capable of -- in his personal life, he was known to treat black people he knew as individuals with the respect they'd earned. That might be a flaw in the word, or at least in what we use "bigot" to mean, which is why TNC is onto something when he points out that Wallace exploited racism and bigotry: he was an evil opportunist. But I don't think it is legit to assume he was ignorant -- he knew exactly what he was doing, which undercuts the idea that he is properly summed up as either bigoted or prejudiced. He was worse.
Lincoln, well -- stand beside him to measure his size.
TR is a broader subj., so I won't go into it except to point out that, like racism and racist, "race" is one of those words that we use as if it is precise when it's not.
Jesse Jackson, Sr., famously said that it troubles him that he's relieved to turn around and see that someone following him walking on the street at night is not a young black guy wearing his pants below his hips with a do-rag on his head. But if the word has any meaning, that's not about "race", exactly -- it's about "young", and "guy", and the clues from clothes and manner.
But words are like any edged tool -- they can be dulled by use.
TNC, have you just created a new idiom? Not "foot in mouth" but "Big Mac in mouth"?
I agree that distinctions are useful and that words can be imprecise; I just disagree that the solution is to exclude Wallace from the definition of bigot.
Housing discrimination may provide a useful example. Say a building owner refuses to rent to blacks and argues that he's refusing to do so because other tenants don't like living around blacks, not because he's a bigot. Despite the owner's motives, the law recogizes the owner's actions as bigotry. Some people disagree with that result. Judge Richard Posner (not a liberal) wrote a lengthy opinion explaining why the owner is still engaging in bigotry. I'll concede that distinctions can be made and that it's useful to talk about those distinctions. Bigotry may come in different forms, as Posner explained. But I don't think you deal with the complexity of this issue by removing the owner's actions from the definition of bigotry. Similarly, Wallace engaged in bigotry - it's complex and worthy of discussion, but it's still bigotry.
Dee, genuine question and we may need to attract a lawyer, but isn't what you're describing discrimination, not bigotry? With discrimination on the basis of race or religion being illegal, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation legal. But bigotry--your beliefs about the people you are or not discriminating against--is not illegal.
In the election there was much discussion of playing various cards (most recently the race card for Burgess, but maybe the Tennessee legislature flap involved some cards, too?), and some politicians are quite happy to play a card they believe will work in their favor (race, gender, racism, anti-Arab sentiment, etc) without believing the card is justified. "This is baseless, but it will get me that extra few points I really need." Perhaps the best non-white/black example would be anti-Arab sentiment, a pol who knows damn well that most Detroit area Arab Americans are native born descendents of Lebanese Christians, but doesn't think he can win City Council by saying so. So they become dangerous illegal terrorist muslim sympathizers, he gets Palin-esque rallies going, and wins office. He's spreading bigotry. By your final definition--acting in a way that enhances bigotry--he's a bigot. But by the one a lot of us are using--his beliefs about other people--he's a particularly ruthless opportunist. If he thought ginning up homosexual hatred was polling better than Arab hatred, he'd go for that in a heartbeat--he doesn't care who gets lynched if he gets 50.1% of the vote.
I agree with Morzer, "Big Mac in mouth" is a keeper.
Posner may have said this, but the formulation that comes to my mind is by Judge Kozinski (of porn-website fame), in Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1990)
The lay reader might wonder if there can be intentional discrimination without an invidious motive. Indeed there can. A simple example may help illustrate the point. Assume you are an anglo homeowner who lives in an all-white neighborhood. Suppose, also, that you harbor no ill feelings toward minorities. Suppose further, however, that some of your neighbors persuade you that having an integrated neighborhood would lower property values and that you stand to lose a lot of money on your home. On the basis of that belief, you join a pact not to sell your house to minorities. Have you engaged in intentional racial and ethnic discrimination? Of course you have. Your personal feelings toward minorities don't matter; what matters is that you intentionally took actions calculated to keep them out of your neighborhood.
(Whether this makes the hypothetical homeowner a bigot is a pointless question from a lawyer’s point of view, since “bigot” is not a word with legal significance ("term of art").)
Yazzel wrote: What exactly do you mean, you "know the audience here"? It's a reasonably diverse and even fractious bunch, and pretending that you are too good to make a case to us is pretty arrogant. Either explain honestly just what you mean by your remarks about people here, or apologize and back off.
Don't be so presumptuous. If anyone is owed an apology it would be me, but I ain't asking for one. That's weak sauce. As a fellow Atlantic reader, I represent the very diversity for which you speak. And as a reader, I know that we can be a very opinionated bunch, myself included. That is what I meant.
Ta-Nehisi wrote:
Can't make the argument on the merits, so you go from strawman to ad hominem. I asked for proof, and you offered none. You simply proceeded to argue with what you wish I'd said, not what I actually wrote.
I have not quoted you as saying anything.
Wallace was in a position of power and used that power to oppress people. He was a bigot, an opportunistic bigot, no matter how moderate his race views were early in his life nor how he "changed" after an assassins bullet left him paralyzed and how many blacks he appointed in his post CRM era political career.
Ta-Nehisi wrote:
Moreover, if you really "know the audience" and didn't want to engage, don't comment. There's a giant "e-mail Ta-Nehis"i sign to the right. I answer virtually all e-mail. I'd gladly answer one from a fellow Bison.
But don't make a weak claim, fail to substantiate it, and then blame the people in the conversation. Like I said, If you object to the audience, don't engage. Otherwise,you're just a guy railing against McDonald's, having, mere minutes ago, downed a Big Mac.
Read my comments directed at yazzell. I never said that I object to the audience. Further, I did not want a private conversation. My intent was a public conversation with you.
And this is also why Congressman John Lewis' comparison of John McCain to George Wallace was also correct. Mr. Lewis could have worded what he said more precisely, but people like you who are familiar with George Wallace's record probably knew what he meant the moment he said it.
George Wallace was once endorsed by the NAACP because as a racial moderate, he was definitely the lesser of two evils running for office. He had a long record of being a racial moderate before he started the fire breathing segregationists schtick to win votes.
John McCain is most certainly not a bigot. But he sat back and allowed his running mate to hold KKK rallies instead of campaign events. Both men are hypocrites and political opportunists, but bigot is a label that doesn't apply.
why would u want a public conversation if you're not willing to engage the "public"?
"He was an opportunist and a race-baiter. But "bigot" doesn't really apply to Wallace."
Actually I think bigot applies, very neatly. Men aren't born bigots, they become bigots. There is a moment, a fork-in-the-road, when someone chooses cowaradice over bravery, bigotry over righteousness. Wallace could have chosen many paths, but he chose bigotry.
If Wallace doesn't qualify as a bigot, then I'm deaf, dumb and blind.
Further to this: Everybody is entitled to their own opinion about whether the Wallace-bigot is morally worse than the Theodore Bilbo-bigot, or vice versa, or whether they're equally evil. But distinguishing between the two may be of practical value, insofar as the Wallace-bigot may be persuaded to take actions that benefit minorities, if you show him that it is in his own interest to do so.
Jupiter, you have yet to provide a source beyond yourself for "a person who uses his power to oppress people" as a workable definition for "bigot." They really are different concepts. There are plenty of bigots who don't have the power to oppress people.
Similarly I don't get what definition of "bigot" Tessa is using--choosing the wrong fork in the road, cowardice over bravery, etc is very broad. He chose to use bigotry for his political convenience, damn the consequences (e.g. lynchings, oppression, etc); as DC Fem points out, there are many ways in which a man who wants power can use beliefs he does not himself hold. And while I usually find "hypocrite" a weak charge, as it often seems to mean doing/saying the right thing while harboring secret prejudice, what we're discussing--using the worst of human nature for short-term personal gain, while knowing what you're ginning up is harmful and untrue--really does raise "hypocrisy" to the level of a major sin.
The definitions matter because you can make the most beautifully reasoned argument for why we are all one, show scientifically that the justifications do not hold up at all--and for the leader who never bought those arguments, you have wasted your breath. You need a way to convince him that it's not in his short-term interest--as McCain seemed to get at the end when he wrestled that microphone back, realizing that his reputation would go down with Palin and her ralliers without closing the vote gap.
@ Bruce:
I usually lurk and rarely comment. Most of the time I agree with Coates. I wanted a public conversation with Coates because I wanted to share my thoughts on this subject with Atlantic readers. What I did not want to do is get in a debate with everyone who reads the blog. And I realize that goes against the premise of blogging and the notion Web 2.0 audience participation.
Earl Long (Huey's younger brother) did everything he could to promote the interests of black people as governor of Louisiana, while pretending to be a racist to stay in power. The public hospitals in New Orleans were of course segregated into "white" and "colored" wards, but all the nurses were white. The leaders of the black community came to Long and said, Can't you get us the jobs in the "colored" wards?
Long said, Yes I can, but you may not like the way I go about it. What he did was start a public campaign about how demeaning it was to white women to have to handle those nasty black bodies. It worked . . .
(The story, I think, is from A.J. Liebling's book about Long, but I saw it online somewhere.)
"Similarly I don't get what definition of "bigot" Tessa is using--choosing the wrong fork in the road, cowardice over bravery, etc is very broad. He chose to use bigotry for his political convenience, damn the consequences (e.g. lynchings, oppression, etc); as DC Fem points out, there are many ways in which a man who wants power can use beliefs he does not himself hold."
Okay then let me be more specific. Let's say you don't know Wallace at all, never heard of him before, and he's running for office in your state. You see several disgusting, race-baiting commercials "paid-for by the Wallace campaign." You turn to other person on the couch with you, and you say, "what a bigot." Would you be wrong? And wouldn't you laugh if someone said, "no, he's not a bigot, he's just a race-baiter."
I'm just being real here. In my world, Wallace is a bigot.
Fair enough, but it's seem that you want to have your Big Mac and eat it too...
@Deborah
Okay... I'm not trying to redefine bigotry. I was trying to illustrate a bigot's actions. And, I hate to keep using comparisons. I swear this is the last one.
So, is Farrakhan a bigot? I consider him one. But, he's said in numerous interviews and statements to the mainstream press (most famously on CBS's 60 Minutes) that he has never hated whites or Jews. He hates what he perceives as the wrongs they've committed against various people of color and what in his mind they continue to do, which he repeatedly tried to point out, but he sees them as a part of humanity. Farrakhan used the same type of firebrand rhetoric that Wallace used to ignite audiences back in the 1990s to gain power in the Black community and a voice on the national stage. He's never laid a finger on a single white person or Jew. He's only used his freedom of speech to rally his people for the great good of that community. His strategy was to play the victim and point out the oppressor(s). He too change his tone after a near death experience (prostate cancer) and is clearly not the same Farrakhan of the 80s and 90s. But is he, was he a bigot?
I understand the distinction, but anyone who would use racial animus as a tool for political advancement is some kind of bigot--a non-bigot would have to decline the opportunity, much as a non-murderer would decline the opportunity to become governor of Alabama by killing his opponent. You can't be an instrumental bigot unless you have some sympathy to bigotry.
It appears Mr. Coates has read Dan Carter's The Politics of Rage, as this post basically echoes Carter's thesis. This argument has now become standard as Carter's work is in the top 10 of best histories of the modern south to be published in recent memory. He paraphrases Carter wonderfully, and it's always nice to see that the work of great historians can make it into mainstream intellectual discussions.
Jeff Frederick adds to Carter's work in his recent Stand Up for Alabama. Frederick arguing that not only did Wallace sell out African Americans' rights for poor, white votes, his policies deliberately favored business and white elites instead of the poor. Hardly the populist hero his rhetoric suggested.
George wallace is an interesting figure. He is one of those people that shows us that the labels that we apply to people don't always fit completely. I think Wallace much like the early pre-presidential Lyndon Johnson was a public racist privately well meaning.
The trouble with terms like bigot and racist is that they are one size fits all terms that seldom adequetly describe the actual phenomenon. I think that distinctions matter, and I also think that when TNC said that Wallace wasn't a bigot what he meant was that he wasn't an individual racist but a political racist.
Being a political racist he arguably (with no argument from me) was more harmfull because he had to appeal to those who were individually prejudiced to get elected. Such an understanding is not meant to let Wallace off the hook in any way. Rather by understanding that the lust for power was a bigger factor in Wallace's life than his feeling for justice, a deeper understanding of his character is achieved than by merely writing him off as a bigot.
PBS did an incredibly detailed and balanced Documentary on Wallace which may be found here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/
"Bigot" has always seemed to me about the way of hating a group that's deep enough that (a) it's not going to shift much based on experience and information and (b) it's not going to allow much calculation of rational self-interest.
I don't think Wallace did his wickedness that way. He shifted directions several times, as he calculated what would work for his own career. His way of being evil involved deciding he could just drive over people to get what he wanted. I don't know the rest of his story well enough to be sure, but my guess is that he did that to many different kinds of people when he thought it would work.
The difference doesn't matter if the question is about whether Wallace did some mighty evil. He certainly did.
The difference does matter if the question is about knowing your opposition well enough to win some battles.
Also, understanding what Wallace did on race is helpful to understanding what Rove and his ilk are doing on same-sex marriage. They'll use it as long as they get 50% plus 1 vote by using it. The day they get 50% minus 1 vote, they'll drop the issue. There are other conservatives who will fight as long as they breathe, but once the Wallace-type opportunists abandon ship, the main point will be settled.
Wallace actively used the coercive power of the state to further racial discrimination and the attitude that blacks are inferior. And he put personal skin in the game, standing in the door and all that. If that doesn't make him a bigot, I guess I don't understand the meaning of the word. Maybe that's the case, because the attempts above to distinguish prejudice from bigotry make no sense to me.
Don't be so presumptuous. If anyone is owed an apology it would be me, but I ain't asking for one.
Posted by Jupiter | January 15, 2009 10:10 AM
Yes, you obviously do deserve an apology after insulting the commenters on this topic, as well as flaunting what seems to be a remarkable degree of arrogance. As for calling other people presumptuous, I take it you are unable to understand what an ad hominem attack is? Didn't you learn anything from reading what TNC wrote?
Interesting question about Farrakhan. I personally believe that he has never had anything personal against Jews, but knew that Jew-bashing gave him street cred, and he's quite willing to say things he knows are untrue, e.g. that Jews were influential in the slave trade. So, yes, he's a black George Wallace.
George Wallace become a very different man after being shot. He saw the things that he had done were wrong and truly repented. He reached out to the black community in a way that few would be willing to do. He was a flawed man but it just shows God can change a person.