Yesterday somebody asked if I'd comment on the following passage from Byron York:
On his 100th day in office, Barack Obama enjoys high job approval ratings, no matter what poll you consult. But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are significantly less popular with white Americans than with black Americans, and his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.At first, I said I wouldn't--mostly because I don't want to be that guy who patrols the net looking for right-wingers who say dumb shit about black people. Moreover my fellow Left-Coast Avengers were already on the case. But then the quote stayed with me. And after thinking on it, I realized why--Even by the standards of a National Review alum, I think that Byron York's column is incredibly racist.
We spend a lot of time attacking people for playing the race-card--I've done my share. But what largely animates this idea that crying racism is an overused tactic (as opposed to say crying antisemitism) is this notion that among polite, thinking people, there are no employers of racism. Racism is the trade of the American savage--the man who flies the Confederate flag, has an undiscovered dead dog under the porch, and lives in West Virginia. This man doesn't walk among the civilized.
But here is your political correctness run amok:
James Watson argues, not simply that there may be a biological explanation for IQ differences, but says of notions of intellectual equality, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not to be true," and be held up as a truth-teller.
A series of newsletters entitled the Ron Paul Freedom Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report, The Ron Paul Politcal Report are revealed to be incredibly racist. ("Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks" Martin Luther King "seduced underaged girls and boys.") But Paul knows nothing about them, and is the farthest thing from a racist. ("Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero.")
Duane "Dog Chapman is recorded repeatedly calling a black woman a nigger, but his son says the following of him, "My dad is not a racist man. If he was he would have no hair. He'd have swastikas on his body and he would go around talking about Hitler. That's what a racist is to me."
Geraldine Ferraro claims that a black guy has only succeeded at presidential politics because he's black (twice!) but is most offended by the notion that someone would think she was racist. (Since March, when I was accused of being racist for a statement I made about the influence of blacks on Obama's historic campaign, people have been stopping me to express a common sentiment: If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist.")
Michael Richards, repeatedly, yells at a black heckler, "He's a nigger!" then goes on national TV and says he's bothered that people think he's racist. "I'm not a racist," Richards said. "That's what's so insane."
We live in a country that may well be offended by racism, but it's equally offended that anyone might actually charge as much.
[MORE]
York, to his credit, does not say of Obama's voters, "They're all niggers!"--he simply argues that they don't count, presumably because they're zombies in the sway of a black dude who knows how to string together a couple of sentences.
The essential Dave Weigel displays more patience than I can muster and calmly notes what any decent political observer already knows--Obama's support among blacks isn't exactly aberrational, when compared to other Democrats. That point needed to be made, but it's so obvious that I'm at a lost to explain how York could miss it.
Which leaves me with this: I know that certain black public figures had made a game of name-calling out of racism. I also know that white people, like all people, want the benefit of the doubt--and, like all people, they deserve it. I try to give it as much as possible. In this instance, it has to be withheld.
I don't say this because I expect York to care very much. I say this because I hope some of my white readers, who think Bobby Rush is the end of this discussion, understand why I'm very comfortable calling York's column racist. As for the matter of York's heart, I leave that to him. I don't wash his laundry. I don't balance his affairs.
For the rest of you, I don't want to be in the business of shutting down conversation. But I also think that in this particular business a spade, forgive the irony, must be called by its name.
UPDATE: I edited the third graph to make my point a little clearer. Here is the old graph:
Which leaves me with this: I know that certain black public figures had made a game of name-calling out of racism. I simply know people who are under headstones because of it. I know that white people, like all people, want the benefit of the doubt--and, like all people, they deserve it. I try to give it as much as possible. In this instance, it will be withheld.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Americans all actually pretty much hated Bush from day one. The only reason he made any progress at all, politically, was because of his fanatical support among white people.
Ok--but did you hear anyone write a column about that? Of course not.
This is nothing new as the media throughout the whole campaign was basically saying as much without being so crass about it.
What do you think those "regular folks" meant? The media wasn't including blacks as "regular folks" or part of "real America."
Thank you for putting this in far more eloquent words than I could TNC without losing my mind.
And they say we are living in post-racial America because of Obama? Please.
I think the only people still saying we're in a post-racial America because of Obama are the ones who have the most to lose if racial divides disappear, the Byron Yorks and such. If they have to actually compete on ideas instead of by using shorthand to appeal to ancient hatreds, they'll have their asses handed to them every time, and they know it. "Post-racial America" is their attempt to stay relevant.
"Ok--but did you hear anyone write a column about that? Of course not."
Whoa, whoa. It was a joke. I was making fun of the dude by trying to show how ridiculous it would sound the other way around.
My point was that you can make this argument to show whatever you want: e.g. "If you discount support among non-Asians, straight people, and those over 30, Margaret Cho would be President. Therefore, Margaret Cho will be President in 2012."
If it's not technically racist (I think I'd have a couple of quibbles with classifying it that way), then it's certainly dismissive, insulting, prejudiced, and weak.
It's racist. Period.
I would actually be very interested in hearing your quibbles. "Racist" is a word I mostly avoid using because I feel like it shuts down discussion in a way that isn't particularly helpful but sometimes we're past that. I cannot think of a way to interpret York's comment doesn't end with describing it as racist. Its just about as explicitly racist as any sort of expression I can think of aside from outright statements of racial animus (eg. "niggers are stupid"). In his formulation, either black people don't count or their opinions don't count because they are not "real" opinions on policy. I don't see any other options for interpreting his post. Where do you disagree exactly?
To be sure, I’m not confident that it’s not racist. I share your desire to refrain from shutting down arguments, and maybe my quibbles come from my need to find quibbles. Maybe I’m pathologically contrarian, but I want to find a way that something isn’t as bad as it seems.
Let’s say this: I differentiate between racial prejudice, which I hold to be more of a preconception born out of ignorance or cliché and racism, which I tend to place with the belief in an inherited superiority of one’s own (let’s call it) racial group over another or all others. Now, an argument can be made that York is doing precisely that in that he seems to be dismissing black opinion as being ill-conceived and, therefore, lesser than white opinion—indeed, separate from American opinion. And when I phrase it that way, it’s hard to remember my quibbles. I’m sure I had some. Let me meditate on it. Nope. Got nothing. I came up with a couple very weak rationalizations, but they don’t hold up. I forfeit.
I think the only way it makes any sense is if it's racist: York's statement is indefensible on basic logic unless it starts from an axiom that black Americans' opinions are worth less. If we are to assume that York's statement made logical sense to himself, then he must have begun from that premise. Ergo, it is racist.
I remember a couple weeks ago on Real Time Andrew Breitbart said "the worst thing you can be called in America is a racist." My immediate thought was "Really? Not Rapist? Not Murderer?"
The irony is great though. I mean, these are people who are afraid of having their arguments, philosophy, and some times even life, reduced to one word: Racist. I don't believe in karma or providence, but I have to admit, the world has a funny way or working itself out some times.
Well, I'm speaking as an outsider, but did anyone stop to think that his support among African-Americans is due to the fact that he's turning out to be a skilled a president as he is a politician. I mean, Irish-Americans were proud of Kennedy in part due to his hertiage, but I don't think they'd have gotten behind him if were just a hack. They may have been more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but if he had been a Harding or Bush-level bumbler, they'd have turned their backs on him just like any other ethnic or demogrpahic group would have. I assume the same goes for most African-Americans.
Put another way: A lot of white people were initially inclined to root for Larry Bird but what kept him popular with a lot people was his performance on the court over time. I mean, there's a reason we still talk about his pro exploits and not Rex Chapman's.
I gotta tell you, TNC, there's a problem when you have to back into calling anyone a racist.
This bothers me to the Nth degree, man.
For some reason calling someone a racist is worse than being a racist.
I think it's wrongheaded, morally and intellectually, to write posts like this that are all about making white folks feel comfortable in the more subtle aspects of racism that they 1) don't recognize and 2) think are more harmless than they actually are.
Getting past racism is all about working through that uncomfortable feeling. It's all about recognizing that there is behavior that we enact that we don't "mean" to enact.
Do I think people take advantage of the so-called "race card?" Sure. But pretending as if that is a bigger problem that racism itself is grossly offensive, untrue, and dangerous.
Really? I thought I was pretty clear:
You're going to have to quote what you object to, because this:
Was basically my point.
I guess the part that threw me was this:
"We live in a country that may well be offended by racism, but it's equally offended that anyone might actually charge as much."
It feels soft to me. I actually think that we are not offended by racism at all. I actually think there's a huge difference between the way whites and non-whites view racism. The fact that we have a term "race-card" alone bears this out.
I think there's a similar problem with both statements in that they both generalize too much. Who's the "we" in those statements? There are lots of people who are offended by racism, white and non-white. Sure, whites and non-whites tend to view racism differently--how could they not?--but that doesn't preclude either from being offended by racism.
I think that even at the institutional level, there's some offense taken at racism, though it's not as common as it is on the individual level. If there wasn't, then there's no way Barack Obama is elected President, because there would be little downside to attacking him merely for the color of his skin. Yes, we still have a long way to go in rooting out that institutional racism, but the overall situation has improved in the last fifty years.
No disrespect here, but I'm still not quite getting the point. That sentence--in the context of the entire argument--is pointing out the absurdity of equating actual racism with simply being called a racist. That's the point of what I wrote. If you follow the link at the top, it's the same argument.
It may well be true that I could have been clearer, though I'm not quite sure how. It may be true that the sentence is "soft," I can't call that. And as to you argument that this country isn't "offended by racism at all," I just, respectfully, disagree. Still, I'm not sure how that turns into the post being "wrongheaded, morally and intellectually."
The "race card" was a term that insofar as I remember was coined during the OJ trial. What it referred to primarily was Johnny Cochran raising the historic issue (one that was developed into a book length novel, Native Son, decades previous by Richard Wright) that historically a black man could be lynched by being in the same room as a white woman. The secondary way in which the media stated it was used was via Mark Furman, whose spoken record revealed the kind of racism that is cited in this post. Because most of the nation felt that OJ was guilty, a sentiment that has grown stronger over time, and that somehow he got off because the defense attorneys made use of this strategy in their case (as opposed to the real reason, which was the prosecution and police botched it in every imaginable way) this term became a short hand for eluding responsibility based on the idea that all one has to do is cry "racism" and you can get away with murder.
But racism in our society is far more insidious; people of all backgrounds are daily flooded with stereotypical thinking that is both reductive and harmful via media images of people we don't live among, hang with, work with, know. Certainly well meaning people are as subject to this kind of brainwashing as those dyed in the wool racists, homophobes, and misogynists, et al among us. Was the Post cartoon racist? Enough so to call it out? I thought so, but others did not, and still others defended the cartoon on the basis of calling it racist as completely out of line.
The issue of race, albeit that is not the only such issue, raises hackles. To be a racist is to bear the mark of Cain, and one can in some instances lose one's ability to make a living and take care of one's family as a result, so I understand some initial defensiveness.
However, when people persist in their ignorance and tunnel vision, when as a result whole swaths of our population are forced to accept institutional prejudice against themselves, rather than display a willingness to acknowledge their own vulnerablity to the incessant racist (homophobic, misogynist, dare I say classist) brainwashing that goes on in our society, that is the line beyond which I, personally, with myself and others, find fault.
I've read that quote from York several times, and its still just jaw dropping.
If you really want a true trip into shock-and-nausea land, however, go read the reader comments under the article.
I can only imagine. Reading the comments section on many an article nowadays is like pulling out the refrigerator from its space or looking under the cushions of an old couch--nastiness abounds. I've been trying to avoid comments sections like I've been trying to avoid cable news these days.
TNC,
You assume that you actually exist. Mr. York assumes otherwise. Why is that racist?
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. A very skilled Shorter Byron York. Nicely done, sporcupine.
York is claiming that because one particular group of people--in this case, a race of people--support Obama, it means Obama's overall popularity is lower than it appears. Or, in other words, that group's support is meaningless. Simply because they're members of the same group. That is reducing an entire race, made up of individuals with differing motivations and beliefs, down to one defining characteristic.
And how can that be anything but racism?
I think the point that it seems like it's worse to be called a racist than actually to be a racist is a frighteningly valid one. The consequences of racist acts in this country are disturbingly minor. The consequences of being labelled, however--racist, rapist, child molestor, whatever; of having a negative name applied to you--are stronger.
+1.
Thanks TNC! Well said. I keep looking at that paragraph, which opens his essay by the way, and just laugh. It's like when some of the mucky mucks of my company who hail from the southeast (VA, SC) come out here to LA and say ridiculous crap out of the blue to our faces, like "My wife's best friend is black" or "We adopted a black orphan girl." (To which I said "I admire your largesse, but can you do her hair?") It seems innocuous until you think about it. They may as well exclaim "I take offense, Beauregard! We LOVE our negroes." York is about a thousand times more offensive because he means it and tries to couch it in "logic." This is I think the point of TNC's post and why I'd quibble with BreakerBaker's quibble. It is a racist statement, technically or otherwise. If you discount a race solely because of their race, it is racist and that is what York has done.
"We adopted a black orphan girl." (To which I said "I admire your largesse, but can you do her hair?")
Sadly, I know from experience that some ignorant person did actually respond to the fact of your melanin in such an inept fashion.
However, I think your use of the word 'largesse' in reply triggers a 5 yard penalty and loss of first down for unnecessary roughness. You already had the hair call-out in there, and nobody was going to get back up after you hit him that hard.
No need to rub the nose in the dirt by pointing out how racism and ignorance are two ugly things that just exacerbate one another.
Otherwise, well played. My usual response to that particular form of racist expression, triggered by my daughter's skin, is not nearly as articulate. I go with, 'What on earth would make you say THAT?'
That's probably because I'm still surprised every single time the presence of melanin taps a well of ignorance that has apparently not been plumbed or capped by its owner.
Isn't it a good thing if being thought of as racist is such a badge of dishonor?
I would say so, but then again, I'm one of those hippie liberals.
It is a good thing. But it becomes problematic when you try to explain to someone how you as a person of another race (the actual races don't matter) would find some comment or attitude or action of their racist and you feel that you have to spend for frakking time explaining that you don't actually think of the other person as racist than you spend explaining your frakking point.
For example, I have a friend how often refers to certain undesireable, mostly criminal types of people as "animals". She's a prosecutor in Brooklyn. She's a white girl from Long Island. I'm fairly certain most times the criminals she's talking about are black or Latino, but I know her and I know she would use the term "animal" for the sort of criminal she was referring to of any race. I also know that she comes from racist LI stock and she probably picked up the term "animal" from her racist relatives who did put racial animus behind it. Now, if I ever tried to explain to her why using the term "animal" could be construed as racist I'd end up spending half an hour at least trying to talk her off the ledge, trying to reassure her that I don't really think she's a klansman. It's ridiculous.
I think the problem--and one of the points that TNC was making--is that now many people equate the word "racist" (when it comes to white people) with a range of beyond the pale stereotypes that cast racism as a problem that belongs only to the monstrous/socially unacceptable/pariahs within white society (skinheads, neo-Nazis, KKK members--see the "Dog" example above). It's such a badge of dishonor because it only gets attached to the grossest, most repugnant instances of racial insult and violence (verbal and physical). So you can have people who believe in a whole host of racist stereotypes about black folks who will swear up and down to you that they're not racist because they "never use the [whispered]'N-word.'" I'm not sure it's a net positive for our society if people can't understand the difference between having racist beliefs and being a Klansman. It has the potential to turn every argument about racism into a Godwin's Law type situation, and we all know how productive that would be. That's why I think it is important to call out "polite" racists like York, however. It's important to push back against that reductive and unproductive equation, and it's because he doesn't "look" or "sound" like a racist that York's variety of bigotry is so dangerous.
BD, I think TNC's argument, and the one I made a few threads ago, is that while being called a racist should be a badge of dishonor, it has gotten to the point that to be publicly and widely acknowledged as a racist you have to say some REALLY f'ed up stuff, and that is a problem. Lots of people are racists, but won't acknowledge it because we've set the bar so low.
Well, those who are consciously racist, those who actually ascribe to an ideology of racial superiority, certainly deserve nothing but dishonor and disdain. However, as Ta-Nehisi says (I think?), this sort of racism isn't really the issue anymore. Now, the dominant form of racism is more unconscious--prejudiced people who don't realize how prejudiced they are. At worst, they claim their problem is with the "culture" and point to how friendly they are with their clean cut black co-worker as evidence of how not racist they are.
And the thing is that those people, for the most part, are not bad people (I think Obama was making this point when talking about his grandmother, the statement that led to the 'typical white person' pseudo-gaff). They aren't filled with hate. You could certainly call them ignorant, and I think fearful would also be pretty accurate. But the best of all might be lazy. The essence of prejudice is to apply the attributes of a racial stereotype to an individual, and the reason people do this is because it is much easier than the alternative. Similarly, prejudiced attitudes form when people see individuals acting in certain ways and attribute that behavior towards the type of person they are, as opposed to the more situational conditions that individuals use to explain the causes of their own behavior. Psychologists call this the "fundamental attribution error", and it, too, is basically an act of laziness.
And the nice thing about telling someone that the thing they're doing is wrong because it is lazy is that it doesn't shut down all conversation. No one thinks of themselves as evil or hateful, and when you tell them they are there's a very good chance they'll assume you don't know what you're talking about and ignore what you have to say. But we're all at least a little bit lazy, and we all know it. If we reserved the true ostracism for the true haters and kept the inadvertently racist from defensively clamming up, we might actually be able to have that much-looked-for "conversation on race" and get a little closer to putting all forms of prejudice behind us.
Of course this would require considerable restraint on the part of black people, because they're generally not wrong to use stronger language and it's pretty satisfying to call a racist a racist. As a white dude the framing of the racial debate is not my call to make... but I still think it might be a good call.
I think it is a stupid way of trying to explain why your opponent is popular, before the Clintons were called racists by some, Bill got huge support from the black community, even after some well publicized slights. I would be interested to see if the numbers are that different from other dem support groups like union households.
From the NYT's survey, what I found interesting wasn't the support numbers, right track/wrong track, or issue analysis; it was this:
Twenty-seven percent of black respondents say the economy is "very good" or "fairly good," while 34 percent rate it "fairly bad" and 39 percent rate it "very bad." Among whites, just 10 percent call the economy "fairly good" (none say it is "very good"), while 42 percent say it is "fairly bad" and 47 percent say it is "very bad."
I am not pointing this out to be York-like, I don't think race is the factor in it, I think it has more to do with party affiliation. I just think it is an interesting exercise in how partisanship impacts our perception.
York's point boils down to "of course Obama is popular among blacks, they'll just back a black guy"--the problem with that argument is that blacks didn't flock to the Alan Keyes campaign, or swoon when Bush appointed Colin Powell or Condi Rice to the highest cabinet positions that black Americans to that time were ever appointed. Granted, blacks have in recent decades been overwhelmingly supportive of Democrats (see, Clinton, Bill) but that's no reason to discount such support--it'd be like saying (as a commenter above noted) "Bush only has high approval ratings because rural whites have overwhelmingly backed him". Levels of support will vary greatly across the population, and all of those groups will make a difference in the final tally.
Could this also be due to Obama's statements at his presser? Essentially, that those who will benefit the most from the stimulus package are those who are hit the hardest, typically african american and latino communities. So, Blacks who are seeing a boost in their paychecks and tax returns are feeling the effects of the stimulus (are being cushioned if you will by the stimulus), which is why they are more inclined to say the economy is "good."
The poll predated last night's press conference so I don't think it would. Also, much of the stimulus hasn't even been spent yet. As for the boost in the paychecks, 95% are supposedly getting that so it would hardly account for the disparity in polling. Also, the amounts per paycheck are very small, you are talking $15 , so most only have received $30 or $40 so far.
The tax cut is far less than Bush's $600 stimulus from last year, I highly doubt that blacks and latinos thought more positively on the economy last spring than white people did. Besides, giving someone even $1,000 doesn't make the economy good or great, a glance at the unemployment numbers tells you things are going poorly.
I'm not sure the Saletan column you link to is racist in the way that the York column is. (Saletan has a new one up today: http://www.slate.com/id/2217340/)
He says (today)
The column you cite is actually interesting if you look beyond the "white/black" lenses that most of us in the US bring to questions of race.
I'm not sure his conclusions are correct, as the differences he cites are as likely to be environmental as genetic. I suspect that, in most cases, environment trumps genes.
Right. Which is why I never actually said that.
That section is about claiming that people who say racist things about black people are actually persecuted, nonracists. I think saying of intellectual parity, as James Watson did, that "people who have to deal with black employees find this not to be true," is about as racist as it gets. Saletan then defends Watson as nonracist, truth-teller.
If you're interested in the substance of that argument--beyond that comment--and Saletan's view on race and intelligence, google around. Indeed dig through Slate itself. The debate was had. I'd rather not rehas it here.
It was an ugly one, too, I know because I got involved. If you wander into the Fray, you best be prepared. The worst part is the extent to which science and statistics were used; things got so complex that you actually had to step back and say "wait, this whole premise is flawed"
Slate also had someone do a rather thorough rebuttal. I want to say it was Chris Beam, but I could be wrong on that. Anyways, that should also be around the same time. Saletan ended up putting up a half-hearted apology after the rebuttal.
The Fray is as bad as any unmoderated forum on a popular website. So I avoid it.
(Even worse are unmoderated websites like Kuro5hin.org. Once a smarter slashdot, it degenerated into a racist and homophobic mess.)
No, you didn't say it, but you seemed to imply it. But I'm a programmer, not an english major...
Also took lots of math in college. Which leads to...
I remember when that article was published, heck, I read "The Bell Curve" (another case of, IMHO, getting the causation wrong*)
The basic (or root) theory, that IQ is distributed normally, makes sense. Everything else measurable in humans is. That it can vary by environment seems rather obvious. Poor kids, in general, get less education (and have worse environments) than middle-class or rich kids (again, in general). The argument Saletan and others made was that race was the causation, because blacks have lower IQs than whites. Which ignore that blacks (worldwide) tend to be poorer than whites. The stats are just as supportive of the dependence being on environment. Especially as (in the US) black/white is a continuum rather than the more binary (european/african) you see in the rest of the world.
*That is, of course, the generous view. Perhaps he looked for data to support a conclusion...
Gotcha. It was unclear. The implication of racism was for Watson, not Saletan.
A line needs to be drawn under the fact that York's column is f'ing racist. It does not just state his opinion that Obama's support amongst blacks means less than his support amongst whites, it is meant to diminish on the merits Obama's standing as President when compared to other Presidents.
The "Calling Spades" heading for your post is apt. Given the outrageousness of York's column, I don't think that you need to as circumspect in doing so.
I'm not going to yell.
No need. York's column draws enough attention.
My view that you need not be as circumspect in this instance was a comment, not a criticism.
In my experience, if you "can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist", it's probably because you're a racist and can't stop saying racist shit. And that experience is that of a middle class middle aged midwestern white guy.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you have experienced being called a racist more than you've witnessed racism, than you probably need to examine your attitudes a bit, because you're probably saying/doing some pretty racist things. Either that or you're hanging out with a radically different crowd than I am.
I saw this comment yesterday on York's post:
"49 percent of whites in the Times poll say they have a favorable opinion of [the Democratic President]. Among blacks the number is 80 percent. What percentage of whites voted for President Obama in November? 43 percent? Among blacks, the number was in the mid 90s. So could Obama actually be more popular among whites now than he was on Election Day?"
I've been trying to make sense of this in my head. Is it really that clear? Based on those numbers, a fewer number of blacks are giving him a favorable rating than voted for him, and the reverse is true for whites. Doesn't this kind of invalidate York's point? Am I missing something here? Somebodyhelp me out...
Pretty much since he interrupted Hillary's coronation in Iowa, there has been a concerted effort by Obama's opponents to marginalize him, ususally by claiming that his popularity can be explained away by (1) his race or (2) his "celebrity" status and supposedly messianic hold on young people. It would be wishful thinking to expect that to stop. There is a (fortunately, ever-shrinking) portion of the population that simply cannot accept his success as a well-earned product of hard work, intelligence, and rational thought (possibly because that combination is witnessed so rarely these days) and will continue to find excuses to explain it away.
Excusing away Obama's popularity as a mere product of his high approval numbers with Blacks is unquestionably racist but I don't think racism is what drives all the people who share York's beliefs (though I don't pretend to know many of them, so maybe I'm just thinking wishfully). I think for many the issue is confusion. They just don't get how they lost control of a country they seemed to be in total control of four years ago. I don't want to ignore the added level of dismissiveness about Obama that I don't think would be there for a White politician with identical accomplishments, indeed, that is probably a big part of the confusion for a lot of these people, so it shouldn't be ignored. But, at the end of the day, this sort of reminds me of a Saturday Night Live sketch from about a decade ago. Newt Gingrich and a few other Republicans are sitting around a bar desperately trying to understand how it backfired. "He cheats on his wife, lies about it under oath, we catch him, we end up getting thrown out of Congress and he's more powerful than ever." And one guy just keeps looking up from his drink and saying "What the hell happenend?" I think that describes a lot of the anti-Obama rhetoric out there. Conservatives desperately searching for an answer to the question, "what the hell happened?"
Funny thing about Jim Watson; he's crazy. Francis Crick was the brains of that duo, but Mr. Space Aliens Seeded Life On This Planet was fairly crazy himself.
I took me a minute to realize it was that James Watson. He's also narcissistic and self involved. Yeah, he acknowledged Rosalind Franklin's work in The Double Helix, but I can never get past the absolute self aggrandizement of the ending, where he claims to be 25 and too old. Shudder.
TNC:
"undiscovered dead dog under the porch" puts you over the top as my favorite blogger.
I too think that Byron York's column is incredibly racist. I keep thinking that what our country is going through now is like a detox. Not sure if you have ever done something like this to your body, but basically when you clean out the system a lot of really stinky shit comes out. A lot more than you ever thought could be in your body and it keeps coming for a lot longer than you may have ever thought possible.
This is some stinky shit.
It might just be the difference between immoral (doing something that might be wrong, but you think it's right) and amoral (using what you know will inflict pain, disregarding the morality of it.)
Personally, I don't think Michael Richards is/was racist. It think he was furious, inarticulate and amoral. Is this somehow 'better'? No. Probably worse, in fact. Calling him 'racist' obscures what he might really be: wholly unsympathetic to moral concerns whatsoever. That is to say, borderline sociopathic. His follow-on TV appearance may well have been merely inarticulate attempts to save his career from the existential threat his amorality had created.
So, in that respect, he might not be a good case study as part of this discussion.
"Americans all actually pretty much hated Bush from day one. The only reason he made any progress at all, politically, was because of his fanatical support among white people."
Reply:
"Ok--but did you hear anyone write a column about that? Of course not."
No, but I did read a lot of columns about people supporting him because of shared religious affinity. If you wanted to act offended, you could read into them the same implication that evangelicals were too slow or deluded to possibly understand and prefer his economic agenda.
I don't want to defend York - he's a jackass and his not checking President Obama's approval amongst African-Americans against that of other Democratic presidents is the stupid mistake of reaching for a conclusion because you want it to be true and not because it actually is true - but there is a different way to read the quote. Most politicians receive support for reasons not having to do with their policies, and you have to discount for that when evaluating how much the electorate actually approves of those policies.
Of course we all realize this and apply it to other politicians - nobody thinks that if President Obama had presented Bush's economic plan that so many Methodists would have argued for it, or, to use the example above, that the sky-high approval for Kennedy amongst Northeastern urban Catholics was driven solely by their appreciation for his tax cut plans.
That's not an insult to those politicians or those groups, it's an acknowledgment of how most people approach politics - people view policies differently depending on their affinity for the person espousing them. We get offended when someone suggests that this causality also applies to us or ours - we like to apply it to everyone else, but we want to insist that our support for our candidates is strictly because we support their program, not because we like them as individuals. But that's ludicrous! Of course someone has to be a good politician and their policies - particularly the ones you really care about - have to be in line enough with yours; pure affinity can't overcome everything.
This is particularly important if we do agree with a certain politician's agenda - we delude ourselves that people are on board with everything he's doing because they agree with it and not because they like him at our peril. You don't believe me? Ever wonder why every Republican yearns for the second coming of Reagan? Because he was the only guy charming enough to get people on board with what they wanted to do! Turns out that a lot of people only like their program when it's espoused by a lovable old coot of an actor.
Again, before people jump it, I don't want to defend York too much, mainly because he didn't do the stupidly simple check of comparing President Obama's approval ratings amongst African-Americans to those of other Democratic presidents. That alone disproves his argument, and it makes him a jackass for opening his mouth to reach a conclusion that he wanted to reach without having properly done his research. I'm just commenting on the principle that almost all politicians receive some support for reasons not having to do with their individual policies.
The problem isn't that York is suggesting that black people are supporting Obama because he's black. The problem is that he's suggesting that black people's opinions are noise obscuring the signal of what real (white) people think.
Maybe. That's not how I read it. Let me explain and please tell me if this makes sense.
I read it as saying that we tend to judge the popularity of a President's positions, in part, from his overall approval ratings - e.g., Bush's approval ratings being in the dumpster by the end of his presidency was widely read as a judgment of his Iraq & economic policies. In President Obama's case, it's not unreasonable to suppose that African-Americans will likely give him the benefit of the doubt and thus turn on him later should things start to head south. As a result, even though, hypothetically, African-Americans may begin to have misgivings about his policies at the same time as the rest of the population, they are likely to actually begin to voice disapproval of his job performance later, allowing, at various times, President Obama's positions to appear more popular than they really are.
Does that make sense? I agree that York's article is clumsily worded, but I was influenced in this reading by the article's concluding paragraph:
That's how I read it analytically. I agree with Mr. Coates' post at the top of the main page right now about why this is a sketchy topic. All politicians (hopefully) have a loyal base, so by focusing on this there is certainly the hint in York's piece that this particular base doesn't really count. I never got that feeling reading pieces about Bush's popularity with evangelicals or McCain's with veterans, etc. The only other time I remember it is with Hillary Clinton's with women, and if we think that sexism is analogous to racism I don't think that that is a coincidence...
Anyway, let me know if the above makes any sense. Thanks in advance.
Did you ever read anything saying that Bush's policies were not as popular as they appeared because they had overwhelming support amongst white Evangelicals? In, let's say, the run up to the Iraq war? What do you think would have been the reaction by white Evangelicals if Paul Krugman had written such a thing? They would have complained that their opinions were being discounted based on their identity as white Evangelicals. It's sort of a ridiculous hypothetical because Krugman would never have written such a thing and if he had his editors would not have allowed it into print. Your premise falls apart because such things are just not said about Evangelicals or veterans. But they are about black people.
By any chance are you a reader of anti-anti racist Tom Maguire? Because he's trying to excuse York's racism with a similar tack.
Could I ever imagine such an article being written about Bush and evangelicals? Sure:
Story here here, from the February 2006 Christianity Today. I found that in about 6 seconds of googling, so I'll suppose there's more out there.
I still think that the basic point is missed, and it is illustrated reasonably well by the article referenced above. The York quote is not saying that President Obama is not as popular as he appears because so much of his support comes from African-Americans, it's saying that his policies may not be as popular as they appear because of that support. One's the person, the other is the policies. The difficulty is always the link between the two.
As discussed in the quote above, President Bush's support amongst evangelicals was clearly based in part on their personal trust and affection for him. Those sources of personal support caused them to maintain their approval of both his job and his substantive policies longer than they otherwise would have and longer than did the rest of the country. As interviews showed, of course, they were beginning to get uneasy and have doubts about the wisdom of his policies. However, their personal support caused them to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt and voice support for his policies long after these doubts had begun to arise. This loyalty ultimately distorted our - and President Bush's and Karl Rove's - view of how popular his policies actually were.
Why can't you substitute "African-Americans" and "Obama" in there and come up with an equally plausible scenario for what might occur the next few years, particularly if one, like York, thinks that President Obama's policies are likely to fail?
Such numbers are not false - Bush and Obama really were / are that popular with their base groups - but in politics it's very useful, particularly if you're a writer for the opposition, to understand someone's sources of support.
I very much agree with your point that if a traditional political opponent writes such a piece the targeted group will and probably should get offended. Mr. Coates is right that to not see Mr. York's remarks as at least a bit racist requires quite a charitable reading, and there's nothing Mr. York has done, no credibility he has with the African-American community, to warrant one.
Indeed, he writes for a magazine that criticized Dr. King upon the announcement of his Nobel Peace Prize and the Reagan administration for protesting actions by South Africa's apartheid government, asking "The first question, of course, is whether the government of South Africa is expected to tolerate terrorist activity." (No, that's not the first question, and certainly not of course, one ought to have been posing about Apartheid South Africa in 1986). Given this context, and the fact that I have to perform Biblical exegesis on the remarks to draw out a non-racist meaning, one can't conclude that Mr. York hasn't brought whatever grief he's getting on himself.
Incidentally, no, I had never read or heard of Mr. Maguire before now.
Many thanks to all for their thoughts, patience, and civility.
Not that I don't agree with your point that York's statement seems unquestionably racist on the face of it, but--
Just for the sake of argument, I think it is possible to give an extremely charitable reading of the comment, which is that York understands true "popularity" as only arising from a broad base of support at equivalent levels across all conceivable racial, ethnic, gender, religious and ideological divisions. Therefore his point isn't that popularity among blacks doesn't "count" but that disproportionate popularity in any sub-group inflates the "actual popularity" of a politician.
Therefore, under this line of reasoning, Bush's "actual" support is probably a bit lower than the 30% or so that it's been in the polls for the last few years, since his popularity is concentrated among white evangelical social conservatives and supporters of torture. And York is simply overlooking that Obama's higher-than-average popularity among blacks may be somewhat counteracted by his extremely and uncharacteristically low support among white supremacists...
So, I guess you COULD ascribe the statement simply to York's committing the sin of confusing the average with the normal (or "actual"), rather than his outright dismissal of black opinion as legitimate. What do you think?
I think a lot of us get tired of people live in a country with it's own peculiar history of racism, who've made their names writing for magazines that defended segregation and cheered on the Southern strategy, recieving "extremely charitable" readings.
Charity is like any other resource--it's limited. Joe Biden deserved Charity for calling Obama "clean" and "articulate." I will not spend my charity here. Were I to write as York does of anyone else, I wouldn't expect you to spend your charity on me.
Following on TNC, why should anybody spend their energy doing some kind of crazy tapdance around what York said--what he actually said--to find some way not to call him a racist? All that does is let him keep saying things that sound awful racist (but he doesn't mean it, poor dear) and make others keep doing tapdances. Even if he doesn't "mean" to be racist, or something like that, he's a grownup and should be held to account. If he, not-a-racist Byron York, doesn't want people to think he sounds racist, he should figure out how not to sound that way.
"why should anybody spend their energy doing some kind of crazy tapdance around what York said--what he actually said--to find some way not to call him a racist?"
Agreed. I find the practice irrelevant. This man basically said black people don't count when it comes to Obama's popularity. It is yet another why for them to marginalize and belittle blacks and Obama.
Reading this back again I guess I didn't put my tongue in my cheek firmly enough.
I agree with both TNC and Miwome's points...
BD's point about the term or tag "racist" being a "badge of dishonor" is an often-overlooked and important point here, I think. BD basically asks the question "Isn't it a good thing that being called racist makes the person being called that dishonorable?" Here's the problem as it relates to actual conversations about racism, as I see it:
[Full disclosure here: I'm Whitey McBlueEyes, so take this info as you will.]
Yes, to call someone a "racist" is to label that person a bad thing, and the vast majority of American culture understands this if not always agrees with this. I think that the idea that racist=asshole is one grounded in reality in most of the country and accepted by most folks. I think there is some truth to the question above where someone asks (perhaps in jest) whether it's more damaging/dishonorable to be called a "racist" than a "murderer." To some degree, "racist" has come to be a term that is closely associated with "evil" in our conversations about race. And this is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it wrong-minded, given our shared history.
The problem, though, is this: It is almost impossible to grow up in our culture and not have racist tendencies, assumptions, etc. It is the country and culture in which most of America was raised. To put it simply (if not simplisticly), all of us are a little bit racist, to varying degrees.
Now, if you don't agree with the above premise, then you're not going to dig what follows, and that's cool--I'm not 100 percent sure all/any of this is correct. But . . . if we can agree that racist tendencies, assumptions, thoughts (subconscious and/or not) exist in all of us, then equating "racist" with "evil" becomes a big problem.
Because when these assumptions, thoughts, tendencies manifest themselves in our words, actions, or behavior--sometimes without our knowledge--it becomes problematic to label them for what they are: racist.
The idea that racism=evil assumes the fact that most if not all of us have no latent or manifest racist anything, assumptions, thoughts, etc. etc. But when someone speaks or acts in a way that is racist or motivated by racist thoughts or assumptions, it becomes difficult for that person to acknowledge (to himself or herself, to others) that what she or he said/did was racist in any way. Because racist=evil, and I'd guess almost no one thinks of themselves as evil, even just a little bit.
So we've got this absolute term that instead of starting conversations about race and racism when and where we really, desperately need them does the exact opposite. Saying "racist" or "racism" shuts down communications, makes the recipient of the term go into his or her bunker and start a defense (to his/herself, to others) about why and how they could never be a racist, regardless of what they just said/did/etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that racism is a very real thing, and if you don't think you harbor any racist thoughts, assumptions, etc, you're probably bullshitting yourself. And bullshitting yourself doesn't help this discussion about race that we need to be having.
Okay, so . . . sorry this turned screed-ish. These are thoughts in my head that I've had for a long time, and putting them out just kind of felt necessary right now. I know that I've said some things inelegantly and there are things here for people to take issue with (like the fact that this way of thinking is dangerous in that it might seem to be saying the being "just a little racist" isn't all that bad, which I don't think is right). But I just don't see how someone, anyone raised in this country can be completely free of racism; there's just too much in our history and histories to assume that.
I think you're confusing racism with prejudice. Prejudice is more about one's thoughts and initial perceptions, racism is more about actions taken due to prejudice. I do see what you're saying in that yes, everyone is prejudice, that's the way our brain is designed actually. But at a certain point logic has to intervene and prevent you from being racist. I'll give you an example in the context--if when Yorke sat down to write the article, he noticed that African-American support was abnormally high for Obama (and like TNC said, it really isn't that abnormal considering his party affiliation), and then he thought "gee, maybe Obama's support is overblown due to race," then that's a prejudice. But as a journalist, who by definition have to do investigation and logically think out an article, writing down that initial thought is racist because it simply isn't true and it disparages African-Americans. Honestly, I'm shocked no one actually called him on it before it was printed.
so just because some one uses the word "nigger" they're racist?
i don't know if i agree with that premise. michael richards, i think, was just trying to get some shock laughter going. it was bad judgment for sure, but i don't think bad judgment qualifies him as racist, especially if thats the only example you can cite from his whole career/life.
same thing is true for chapman. there's a difference between being stupid and being racist. and just because his son is stupid and thinks that only nazi skinheads can be racists, again, thats not evidence that chapman himself is a racist.
i for one and tired of people throwing out the "racist" canard using flimsy evidence. sure, there are racist people out there. but don't confuse stupidity with malice or ill intent.
just using a charged word can't be enough to label someone as racist. do they have a pattern of behavior in their life that demonstrates they think one race is superior to another? i think thats the standard that should be used, not does someone say "nigger"...
but i'm just a racist white guy...so what do i know?
You're also banned. Comments continuing in this thread will be deleted.
I think as someone who does stand-up I can shed some light on this. Stand-up is all about having control over your audience. You can say that Michael Richards was trying to get shock laughter but he really was trying to gain control of the show back from the person who heckled him. He could have gotten control back by being genuinely funny, that is one route comics take when confronted with hecklers. He chose to gain control by tearing down the person who heckled him in the ugliest, least excusable way possible, in a way that WAS RACIST. A black man took control away from him and his only reaction was to call him a nigger and threaten him with lynching, translate that to any other situation and you would know that was racism. I don't think there's a temporary insanity card when it comes to racism. We can all agree Mel Gibson being kind of drunk doesn't excuse him saying antisemitic shit so why does Michael Richards being kind of flustered excuse him?
Deleted. Your tenacity is admirable. We must be doing something right here.
Freaktown, I get that when you're mad, you pick up the first weapon that comes to your hand, but when "nigger" is the word that leaps to mind, you might, just might, be a racist.
As a white Irish Catholic raised in Boston, I feel like I have pretty good racist-radar. All the examples TNC cites are, indeed, "racist", but I am so not surprised by how the people accused defended themselves. All my relatives are "not racists", too.
I got cynical about this particular subject in Boston, because I think it would be more productive for change to be able to acknowledge that we all, and most especially white people, are racist in some way. But, because it has become such an evil term, like the molester or murderer analogy someone mentioned, people are afraid to acknowledge their racist views, which are often views that can change. I know - I have seen it happen and I have had it happen myself. (I live in San Francisco, so there is a lot of opportunity for racial awareness changing, across the spectrum.)
If we could be more honest I think we would see more change. I would love to hear one of these "accused" say, "You know, I thought about what I said/did and talked to some people about it and I realized that it was in fact racist. I regret what I said, and I am really going to educate myself to change my views and behavior." So, I guess the question is, if someone said that, would that be enough, or is it "once a racist, always a racist."?
In my experience: it certainly can be. But it's not chemistry or baking: you can't put in the same ingredients in the same order and get the same result every time. It depends on the person who said or did something racist, what they did, and the people to whom they are apologizing (if one could characterize the comment you narrated as such, which if you ask me is questionable, but at any rate it ought to be an apology), their past experiences, the relationship between the people interacting, etc etc etc. There's no Six Easy Steps to Not Being Racist.
Okay, so I just read the York article, and it is so unbelievably racist that it's stunning it was published. Just change everywhere it says "black" to "white" and everywhere it says "Obama" to "George Bush" and it's an article that belongs on the front page of The Onion. Jesus. Not even vaguely debatable that this article is not racist.
I'm rereading the part you quote as you suggested and really don't see what you're getting at. He is saying that President Obama has a base that highly approves of him and is likely to stay loyal to him longer than the rest of the population, so if things start to go south he's likely to be able to maintain reasonably decent approval ratings.
Let's say it was substituting Bush and White-Evangelicals - why would that piece be at all mocked or even noted as being anything besides a self-evident statement of the truth? Indeed, that is what happened with President Bush, and it very well could happen with President Obama.
Now, I agree with Mr. Coates' post on the main page that the revealing question to pose is why Mr. York points this out - it is just a statement of the obvious, so it does seem like a reason is to delegitimize the opinions of that base, to prepare us for when / if things start going south to say "his approval numbers aren't that low, but that's just the Black vote, and they don't really count." I think that likely is what is going on here. That is racist or at least using racism to divide the country, and that's obviously not cool. But just the paragraph you quote? I personally don't see it, though I obviously could be wrong.
Yes, it would be mocked. It would be mocked if the thesis was that he really wasn't as popular as the numbers suggested because so much of his support came from White-Evangelicals. That would be dumb. Just like this piece.
When I first read the comment yesterday, I wasn't particularly struck by how racist it was, but rather how stupid it was. What I mean by that is it just seemed to be incredibly naive, this idea that it is somehow surprising for people to agree with the positions of a popular president. And I do think that is the way it works, the president himself is popular and so his policies are popular, particularly when it is a newly elected president.
I'm young, I don't know if this is the way it's always worked (though I would guess it's always been like this), but it certainly seems to me that politics is about a rooting interest for a good deal over half the nation. People pick a side, cheer for their team, and believe their guy is right unless he well and truly drops the ball. I live in San Diego, people don't even really get into sports here the way they do in the midwest (where I grew up,) but I still see plenty of people argue over how such and such a player on the Chargers is the most underrated guy in the league, how anyone not first picking LT in next year's fantasy football draft must be brain damaged. Now that's not everyone, their are plenty of people that truly understand football, and can accurately assess the skill of players while still rooting for the Chargers. But most of the people don't understand the sport all that well, and so they just believe that "their" guy is the best.
I think even fewer people understand politics that well, and truly small amount understand economics and foreign relations well enough to make a good judgment call on Obama's policies. So they root for their guy, and they believe his policies are good ones because their from him. Where York went really off track was ascribing this behavior to black people because Obama is black. No, he's young, he's popular, he's a democrat that has gotten people excited. They see him as "their" president for a variety of very legitimate reasons. Hell, even at his lowest approval ratings, Bush still pretty strong support from Texans, and it wasn't because he was white, or because his policies were all that appealing, it's because to a significant portion of Texans he was "their" president.
Maybe I'm way off base on this (in which case I'm sure I'll be corrected,) but that was certainly my initial thought on the comment prior to reading all this discussion on it.
...mostly because I don't want to be that guy who patrols the net looking for right-wingers who say dumb shit about black people.
Yeah, well, you already have a full-time gig, so that's easy for you to say. Doing that patrol would require a staff of dozens of research assistants. Think of the unemployed and how they're dragging down the economy! You could take that on and help some folks put food on their families.
...oh, it was a volunteer thing, where you help folks get smart by letting them know their dumb is showing? Never mind...
Personally, I like to call Watson and "Bell Curve" enthusiasts "racists" and the others just plain old "bigots." Not because I'm trying to be kind or not to offend -- I think Byron York's comments are despicable and he deserves all the contempt he's getting -- but just because it's a little more precise.
I'm a stats teacher and feel obligated to confront the "Bell Curve" argument, and one of the points I raise is that it's racist ... and you don't have to look into Charles Murray's soul to see it, it's just racist by definition. If you think "intelligence" is a single factor, and some "races" are inherently less "intelligent" than others, you're saying some races are intellectually "inferior"; you're making the same pseudo-scientific arguments the self-described racists did, and you just have to admit it.
Byron York is like an Israeli who says a coalition with the Arab parties is illegitimate. He just doesn't think those other guys "count." He's a hateful bigot, but whether he subscribes to the pseudo-intellectual beliefs of racism is another issue.
Not that I'd object too much to calling him a racist, you understand. It's just a quibble, but one I try to maintain.
i don't consider him necessarily a "racist"...but he's definetly dumb as fuck, and a dumb-as-fuck bigot at that. If he's making the point that because black ppl love obama, because they can't see past the fact that he's black, then i suggest he do the opposite to. White people who oppose obama, must be doing so because they're white and can't see past his race. Nothing else. Also, i remember reading some stats on Bush, don't remember exacly, but black people had a pretty bad grade for him (near 80 % disaproval??), specially after katrina. How does Byron York look at those stats? Are black people inconsiderate racialists who shouldn't be looked at and therefore are irrelevant? Or is that the actual grade you would give bush? Another thing that struck me with the poll, is that, no demarcation was made for latinos, asians et al. It just struck me as a natural thing to do, but the poll just acounted for blacks and whites...is this common in the US? Inquisitive minds would like to know!
Let's entertain the premise that black voters actually do not agree with some of Obama's policies and only support them because he is the president, which is the crux of York's argument. He is still assuming that, while black voters are swayed by ethnic and racial loyalties, white voters assess every argument based on its own merit. Not only is that an inherently racist assumption, but the very people that York claims matter may well actually AGREE with Obama's policies, but do not support them because of their own racist tendencies. The racism here is layered like a limestone canyon.
I'd like to ask Byron York how much less an African American's opinion counts than an "actual" white American's. Would he agree that a black person's opinion is worth, let's say, 3/5 of a white person's?
I know how this kind of repeated calling-out of racism must be annoying to do again and again, but it's important because I think there's so many people who don't recognize that there are undercurrents and legacies of racism everywhere in our society, especially in polite society. It's valuable to be reminded of its existence and the all-too-frequent toleration of subtle, coded racism.
I'm not trying to be overly semantic, nor do I disagree with your general point, but: Is this an example of subtle, coded racism? This seems to be pretty blatant.
I can imagine there are a good number of white people who would read that article and think "hmm, this is political analysis about Obama's dependence on the black vote", not "wow he just said black people don't count." It wasn't that subtle, I suppose, but it wasn't obvious the way the N-word or something would be. The kind of racism where you imply generalizations rather than saying them bluntly is the kind of racism people can still get away with, as evidenced by that article's publication.
Without going into it, my favorite comment on IQ came from one of the most mind-bendingly arduous texts I have ever read, a text I am sure Mr. Watson would struggle to puzzle his way through, "Siginfyin" Monkey," by Professor Skip Gates.
He was, in illustrating his basic thesis concerning "signifying" as a complex literary device in African American speech and writing that at the same time reveals a brevity of wit, talking about a group of students who were designing an IQ test that might level the playing field, so to speak, and one question that came up went as follows:
"Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?"
"Your mama."
I'm reminded of Chris Rock talking about how when white people vote for Obama, people always talk about how they weigh the issues, looked at the pros and cons, and they felt that he spoke to their issues. But when black people vote for Obama, it's "well, they black, he black, that must be why! It's like they don't even have names on the ballots. It's just milkshakes. 'Strawberry...no...vanilla...no..CHOCOLATE! I VOTE CHOCOLATE.'"
Byron York's article seems to be a more blatant version of this type of thinking.
You don't need to patrol the net looking for racism. That's like a feminist having to patrol in order to find sexism. [Insert obligatory Matrix quote]
What really shocked and offended me about York's article was the off-handedness of the statement. Usually when people are about to say something so offensive, they realize that what they're writing is going to be controversial and either a) don't say it, or b) qualify the hell out of it. But this was just so casual.
This was highlighted by his response to the criticism he was getting:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/More-on-The-black-white-divide-in-Obamas-popularity-44059142.html
He's basically saying, 'well, what I really meant was that one outlying group skewed the whole, not that blacks' opinions don't count as much, and besides we break down polls by demographics all the time!' Yes, but we don't do the breakdown in order to discount the overall number. And the fact that this wasn't obvious to him is what's shocking.
I like(d) Byron York. I thought he is/was a reasonable conservative who isn't/wasn't overly swayed by ideology. So I'm really hoping I see him engage with the criticism, acknowledges what was offensive about it, and explain himself. I really think that would be, while probably personally hard for him to do, MUCH more helpful to the overall debate than him getting defensive and becoming the next poster child for the anti-PC crowd (see: Miss California, now spokeswoman for NOM). To that end, we who are calling the spade a spade should try and level the criticism in a respectful manner. I think TNC's post was a good model.
This unremitting "Racist!" patrol is getting deeply tedious. It is becoming as numbing as having a six inch piece of rebar nailed down the spine. Get better. Get interesting. Get just a smidgen less predictable.
Shorter Gerard Van der Leun:
I have not read this article but I am sure that it's accusations of racism are false simply because they are there.
There is an internet tradition that calls for you to read the article you're responding to and then comment based on specific points contained within that article. Are you aware of that tradition? Because it seems that you have chosen to reflexively reject the author's view that Byron York has produced a piece of abject racism without thinking that it's your responsibility to provide any further substance.
"There is an internet tradition that calls for you to read the article you're responding to and then comment based on specific points contained within that article. Are you aware of that tradition?"
That couldn't be awesomer.
Just in case:
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2008/06/thanks-to-911-shes-outraged-by.html#583745
Van der Leun,
You've been taken down before, by the Perfessor (may he rest in peace), so you might want to take a hike before Ta-Nehisi sees it to ban your racist ass.
Fellow commenters, I recommend you follow my first link here to see what kind of mook this guy is. His screed about Katrina is up there with Glenn Beck.
It's too late.
Thank you.
It's more tedious to actually have to live through the racism, I think.
Racism is a social construct that is taught and learned. Ethnocentrism may be natural, but racism is not. As David Cross says, no babies first words are, "the Jews have all the money."
One of Howard Zinn's thesis posits that Racism was perpetuated as a mechanism to maintain existing power structures and "divide" groups who, notwithstanding differences in flesh tone, have similar socio-economic interests. Hence, early American history (last 1600s/early 1700s) found that White indentured servants and slaves were treated similarly and got along well. Because this posed a threat to the landed gentry, laws were passed that enhanced the living conditions of White indentured servants and forbid relations between black slaves. These type of laws, that played poor and middle class whites and minorities against each other, as a way to divide people with shared interests, has replicated itself many times through our country.
The first Californian Constitution (1849) granted White Male Mexicans the right to vote, but not dark skinned Mexicans, which divided the interests of the Mexicans from the recently acquired/conqured Mexican territory. In the late 1820s, the state of Georgia passed a law requiring Whites to get a license in order to be on Cherokee territory. Missionaries who got along well with Cherokee were arrested and sentenced to hard labor for violating this restriction. The Supreme Court held that this law was unconstitutional but Georgia refused to comply, and President Jackson famously remarked, "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it." In the early 1900s, only Whites or Blacks could become US citizens, so we have case law where Syrians who were light skinned and well assimilated were determined to be white were granted citizenship. in re najour. But where another Syrian who was darker and spoke poor English, despite the same ethnic heritage, was deemed not-white or black, and was not permitted citizenship. in re. shahid. Thus, creating incentives for individuals to become White in custom and culture and abandon their old ways and countrymen.
I could go on and on.
Professor Derrick Bell's interest convergence theory posits that white majority, and/or the dominant group, people will support racial justice only to the extent that there interests converge. Hence, the Emancipation Proclamation was promulgated because it was necessary to save the union i.e. the interests of whites; not because of Lincoln's love for black people, as he expressed in his letter to Horace Greeley. Likewise, the Vietnam war was the catalyst which permitted the passage of the Civil Rights Act as this was something that effected large groups of white people as well.
Byron York, and his less well mannered contemporaries Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin etc . . . serve the function of divide and conquer well. MM and GB were quick to blame swine flu on illegal immigrants, MM made her name (and on the fact that she's an Asian woman who wrote it) on a book in defense of Japanese internment, carefully ignoring the fact that there was illegally withheld exculpatory evidence in Hirabayashi & Korematsu which indicated that there was no real national security threat from American born Japanese citizens and indeed the Supreme Court in the late 80's vacated their convictions. And C'mon, frickin Charles Limberg was openly siding with the Germans.
If I could, I'd totally punch Byron York in the gut. The worst part about White Privilege is that they don't know that they have it. Byron York has no clue what it's like to be made to feel like "he doesn't belong" or made to feel like an outsider in his country of birth. Byron York, has no clue what it's like to sit in a classroom and be the only one of his flesh tone in that class. He's a good-old-boy, who went to frickin Alabama for undergrad and whose stock and trade is white resentment and discredited policies from the Reagan era.
Thx for commenting on this TNC, and I know you don't like to be the black guy to lay the smack down on ig'nant shit white folk say, but, you do it so well and I love that you bring a little bit of emotion.
I find these kind of comments by conservatives infuriating. This same kind of thing was purported during the campaign, too. The polls were always sliced and diced by race and the pundits would always read them as such. It was annoying then and it's is annoying as hell now. This shouldn't even be a conversation starter because if you look at past Democratic Presidents they probably had the same approval ratings among blacks. Why is it that everything that pertains to blacks is marginalized. I see this all the time. It's almost like to some people, if it involves blacks, it doesn't count. The only relevant opinions to these people are the opinions of whites. Do they think whites are more objective in their opinions or what? This is ridiculous. This guy is another one of those subtle racist who try explain away the relevance of black America as those people over there. I am sick to death of this crap.
The issue is a lot like torture, we narrow the definition to whatever we don't do. So if you can say it and still be in polite society, it's by definition not racist. If the US government does it, it's not torture.
So racists narrow racism to meaning advocacy of slavery, or genocide, or segregation, then say "those people are the racists."
I second Matthew's comparison to Israel, where people will point out that the Labour prime minister doesn't have Jewish majority. What? Just pointing it out, not racist or anything like that...
York also writes "According to the U.S. Census, blacks make up about 13 percent of the population, while whites make up about 80 percent."
Um, no. The 2000 census puts the white population at about 75%. The Census Bureau's American Community Survey three-year-average for 2005-207 puts it at 74%.
In an article built on looking at real numbers from a real source, he dropped in a bogus number without looking it up for confirmation?
The guy transparently isn't ready to share the country. Fortunately, we don't need his permission.
I see your point MR COATES and in many ways i agree. But to all of those that say that this comment by MR York proves something profound.I say that i will not hold any of Al Sharptons comments against black people, if they will not hold this guy York's comment against me. [im a white guy from highlandtown , Baltimore].
Maybe this man Byron York is more important than I realise. But I never even heard of him before yesterday!! Is he someone important? Or is he just a random talking head ,that said something incredibly stupid?
Yes, it was an incredibly ignorant remark he made.But to make this into an example of how ALL whites think seems ridiculous.
I have heard many black people use racial slurs about whites. This does not mean that I would claim that this means anything more than the fact that some individual black men have a bad attitude towards whites.
I am not saying one group is more racist than the other.
I am simply saying that if black people are waiting for the day that every single white person is no longer a racist, then you will have a long wait .
Pete,
When did Mr. Coates claim that this article by Mr. York said something about how ALL whites think? He didn't, and really, none of the commenters have either.
STACY, if i implied that i thought MR Coats himself thought all whites were racists ,that was not my intention and I apoligise .
My point is. That when did Byron York become spokesman for white people, or anybodyelse for that matter? I read many blogs [this is one of the best ones]and i have never heard of this guy before.
I am not saying that he did not say something ignorant. He did. I just do not think his statement was important in the grand scheme of things.There will always be ignorant people.If a US senator said what York said, THAT would be important !
I watched too many drug deals go on in my neighborhood today. I am out of work ,and so is a lot of East Baltimore.I am not against calling people out on their ignorance, but there are far more important things going on in the world besides MR Yorks idiotic ramblings. Best wishes to you STACY, and i apolgise if my original comment was not clearer.
Stick around. We call that out too.
--Ta-Nehisi from Baltimore
I know you do sir . That is why i like to read this blog. I may be white, but your posts speak more to the problems i face ,and that i see around me, then does POLITICO . By the way, i just requested your book from the Pratt library and am looking forward to it. Sorry i can't buy it,money is short right now.Keep up the great work on your blog and thank you for writing about important issues.
This is racist to the core. No ifs, ands or buts.
We are not 3/5ths.
We are the truest Americans. Don't care if I get in trouble about it, I won't back down from it.
This was in the comments over at JJP, and I thought it was on point:
York and other minions like him can go to hell.
The reason why he, Hannity, and Buchanan and others also cling to their racist ideologies, and at the drop of a dime want to call Black folks racist and accuse them of living in the past is because they KNOW Black folks and their history in this country is the very definition of American Exceptionalism.
Black people were the FIRST working class in this country......the economy of this nation was BUILT on their backs.....it was their labor and non-compensation that allowed this nation to rapidly gain wealth.
Black folks have always fought on the battlefields, even when they were not FREE to enjoy VICTORY....and there is nothing more exceptional than Black men going off to combat in conflicts like WWII only to not be able to catch a taxi when they come back to American cities, or have to be treated like second-class citizens in their own homeland, while they are off like other Americans freeing people in Europe who look nothing like them.
If Blacks were so racist, and only support President Obama because of his race, then explain to me why many Blacks risked their lives, died, and marched to be given equal rights to vote for white presidents until now.
I get so sick of this crap from those folks.
You want to talk about standing for your country, being patriotic in the worst and best times...loving a place that regarded you as chattel and sub-human then you need go no further than the Black American's experience in this country...IT IS THE SHINING EXAMPLE of devotion to country.
Ain't I an American?
Amen.
This is a cross post of a comment I also made on Matt Y's blog under a post that linked here:
I think the issue of who is and who isn’t a racist misses the point. It’s hard for me to see how one could grow up in this country and NOT be racist.
Given the horrible mass media depictions of race we all got/get from day one, for the foreseeable future the real determiner of morality regarding racism should not be whether or not one is completely void of racist thoughts, impulses, etc. (because not many of us could meet that standard). It should be whether or not one has spent time learning about other groups - and whether or not one looks for one’s own stereotyped, racist thoughts and impulses in order not to act on them.
I do agree that some of us are almost certainly more aggressively racist than others, in part because some of us were exposed formatively to extreme racism in close proximity (Dad was a member of the KKK, etc) while others got it primarily through the ambient culture, and in part because some of us see our own racism and try to address it, and other's don't. But I would submit that we ALL have racist moments and that we all ought to own it in order to truly deal with it. I am not, for shorthand sake, addressing the issue of racism vs. prejudice (racism as an expression of power). Wouldn't it be nice if someone who said something racist said, "Yes, what I said was racist. I am sorry."
I think that the calling a spade problem is a regrettable outgrowth of a very productive civil-rights era strategy. When apartheid was in practice in the South it was a useful tactic to put Bull Connor and fire-hose-on-children footage on the TV, and tell complacent white Americans 'here is racism!' Unfortunately, now that we've defeated that form and are left with more (or less) subtle types of racism, we're also stuck with a definition that basically allows people who don't stand in doorways actually announcing 'segregation forever' to escape being called racist. It doesn't help that at the other extreme you have a few extremists who do in fact go around calling mostly awkward and sometimes ignorant people racists, thereby providing James Watson with entirely undeserved cover.
I'm a 57 year white guy; born in Compton and raised by parents who grew up dirt-poor and in the South. I'd like to think it's understandable that I've never been one to easily call out people as racist. York, however, hit a nerve. My folks were under-educated, bright and ambitious, but outside of my brother and me, they were without influence. Their racism was obvious and it could never have been mistaken as anything else. It offered no license or cover to anyone. In my youth, I didn't know any other kind. As my parents had hoped, I made my way to the "right side of the tracks" where I eventually discovered the other brands. I was both surprised, and dismayed to find that some the most educated and privileged folks I'd ever been around, didn't seem to struggle with it at all. They weren't conflicted or ashamed, they were just fine with being clever and discreet. Byron York may be in a minority, but he isn't rare. I no longer have bosses or parents that I need, so I can now call a spade a spade. I'm sure some you haven't compromised, and I'm envious. All I can say, is my children had learn about it books, as will their children.
It wasn't included in TNC's above list - but I think Rush Limbaugh screaming "it was about RACE!" into his gold microphone over Colin Powell's declared support for Obama was one of the most racist moments in the campaign. But from what I can recall I think most establishment media types stayed away from calling it as such for precisely many of the reasons stated here in this post and comments. Rush is always on "patrol" for people calling him racist as evidence that this somehow verifies the tyranny of the liberal media - no matter what stupid racist bullshit he says.
For instance (and I don't have the link right now) how about when he says that he's "not allowed to criticize" Obama and must "bend over and take it" because "Obama has an African father"? In such moments I think he is looking to bait - he is daring somebody to call him racist - i.e. call it for what it is - so that he can stoke the whole thing further. And so most establishment media types stay away from doing this, terrified of being labeled 'liberal' and 'politically correct'. Terrified of picking a fight with Rush, just like all those Republican Congressmen.
I'm pretty sure when it gets back to York that people are calling his post "racist", he probably shakes his head and his first instinct is "well, there they go again.".
It is possible that York has inadvertently tripped over a grain of truth here. I've heard the most of these polls are adjusted according to how likely a respondent is to vote, one of the ways that a pollster determines how likely you are to vote is to ask whether you voted in the last cycle.
The AA turnout was the highest it has been in years, I also expect that lots of black folk who didn't vote might be slightly embarrassed to admit that now.
This means that black representation in these polls is quite likely the highest it has ever been. I don't think it necessarily skews the result of the poll as there are probably good reasons for the polling methodology chosen.
Any polling experts want to weigh in? Should we get Nate Silver on the case?