In the past several months Atwater City Councilman Gary Frago has sent at least a half-dozen e-mails to city staff and other prominent community members containing racist jokes aimed at President Barack Obama, his wife and black people in general...Some compared Obama to O.J. Simpson while others suggested that "nigger rigs" should now be called "presidential solutions."
Perhaps the most overboard e-mail was sent on Jan. 15. It read: "Breaking News Playboy just offered Sarah Palin $1 million to pose nude in the January issue. Michelle Obama got the same offer from National Geographic."
Frago admitted sending the e-mails, but showed no regret. "If they're from me, then I sent them," he said. "I have no disrespect for the president or anybody, they weren't meant in any bad way or harm."
More:
Rieger said the jokes he sent had no racial meaning. "As far as I'm concerned the e-mails need no explanation," he said. "I sent them out, I'm not concerned with it," he said.
Rieger also said he had no idea what Frago's constituents might think of the e-mails. "I'm sure if I was black I'd have a different idea of what was funny," he said. "I got black friends that I would tell these jokes to and they would roll on the floor in laughter."
And of the course the predictable finale:
Rieger said that he is not a racist.
Right. Because there are no racists. Ever. Anywhere.
UPDATE: Link added. Sorry guys.
UPDATE #2: Closing comments. I should have done this two days ago. I try to keep this place, pretty open and candid, with the understanding that we're all going to listen, that we're all going to make an attempt at self-reflection. I don't think there's much of that happening here.
But more to the point, from the notion that racists are a marginalized class, to the sense one can draw conclusions about millions of people based on encounters in one city, to the idea that this post is, itself, racist, there is a considerable amount of willful ignorance below.
Willful ignorance is my line--it is the burden of the willfully ignorant. It is their dirty laundry. This is not where you come to get clean.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
35-40 percent?
I'd say that way too high for the 'really don't like black people' segment of society.
Yeah, I agree--that figure is way too high. If it were that high, then Pat Buchanan's new political strategy of appealing to white resentments in a loud and public way would be a smashing success for the GOP---and I highly, highly doubt that it will be.
I think TNC on the right track.
Studies repeatedly show that most Americans hold racist views of blacks for example "The Principle-Policy Puzzle Revisited" I & II or the Implicit Association Test.
How many go beyond guttural association to true adherence to Modern Racism?
35-40% is probably a good guess.
I wouldn't go by the Implicit Association Test, because the results also consistently show that BLACK americans have negative reactions to pictures of black people. That certainly doesn't say good things about american culture, but the test results can't be used to show that a person is in fact "racist" or "really doesn't like black people."
Replying to Lee:
Internalized racial self-hatred is still racism.
It's just a particularly uncomfortable kind to contemplate.
I acknowledge the difference between implicit and explicit attitudes and the fact the the former can be checked, but IAT is still a good measure of "doesn't like black people."
That said one can pick any racism scale one would like, TNC isn't far off.
No, I'm not. I didn't take from your original post that it was most. I get your point.
There are good reasons to disqualify the test, but this doesn't strike me as one. It just means some black people don't like other black people very much either--to the extent that the test is accurate. Both can be true at the same time.
Yes, but if you read it that way, the test results show that MOST black people "don't like other black people very much." I'm no expert, but does that ring true to you? I get that it might show some effects of "internalized racial self-hatred," as Alesis said, but I don't think that's the type of "dislike" you were really talking about in your original post.
To put it simply. Racism doesn't exist as the opinion of one person, it exists as a cultural belief regarded as potentially true among millions.
It's harbored even among "non racists."
The amount which you subscribe to that belief is a measure of racism. It does not, however, dictate actions explicitly.
That said, I read the post charitably to say:
35-40 percent of white Americans harbor a significant amount of racism. It doesn't strike me as unbelievable at all.
What is it to harbor racism? And what is the nature of racism? Those are complicated questions that can draw this reading towards accurate or false - but I think that's what he's trying to say.
It also means the culture makes us racist-- it teaches us that black people are untrustworthy, not smart, etc. Racism isn't just dressing up in white sheets on special occasions.
"I'd say that way too high..."
Nah, it's right on, I'd bet. It's too high for the "Willing to be seen as..." segment, which is a subset often mistaken for the whole.
God, what that poor Sarah Palin has to put up with.
This post has not gotten enough love. Thanks for the laugh.
Where have you gone, Dave Chappelle? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
It's quite a trick to have all this racism without racists. I'm surprised there hasn't been a David Blaine special.
Maybe a little low for the "really don't like Al Sharpton" segment, though.
Sure, Black folks thought those emails were funny.
Sure, they did.
There's no racism anywhere. It's all in our imagination.
Uh huh.
Wow TNC I read that article before I knew who you were!
And someone tell racists something they probably already know. When they are in trouble, they don't have black friends. Do not start sentences with "If anyone..." We know what that means. Everyone knows what that means. Just say you have some kid on drugs somewhere who made you do/say those things and you're sending them to rehab.
also, hitler's many jewish friends used to just roll on the floor with laughter when he'd do his yiddish schtick.
Whoa - a Godwin on a Coates thread! Never thought I'd see the day. :)
Coates, where's the link to the original story?
The blurb on Headline News during lunch yesterday was, "Senators discuss reverse racism case in confirmation hearings," or something to that effect. Of course, pointing out that the term "reverse discrimination" (or "reverse racism" or "racialist/ism") is almost exclusively used to race bait isn't allowed. The fact that these terms not only still exist in our popular culture and dialog amongst people of influence, but are actually enjoying increased acceptance is why we still need affirmative action.
Also, someone should call this guy's bluff and ask him to produce his many black friends who are cool with this shit. This is probably the least believable time that that argument has been invoked.
What would be a more neutral term for discriminating in favor of underrepresented minorities in some area of hiring, school admissions, or government contracting? "Reverse discrimination" seems fairly neutral to me.
"discrimination"
To elaborate, people (well, not proud racist Pat Buchanan) won't say Ricci was discriminated against because of how absurd those complaints are in light of a history of not being concerned with somewhat more serious discrimination. So they make up another word that makes their complaint seem less absurd.
Seriously?
Reverse discrimination implies that all normal discrimination comes from white males. Reverse discrimination is really a very parochial term (Malay discrimination against ethnic Chinese would be what? Bilateral reverse discrimination?) as well as impliedly assuming that all racism and discrimination comes from white people, in the same way that apples come from apple trees.
Yeah, I listened in amazement yesterday to a piece on NPR, Dahlia Lithwick (sp?) was on to comment on the hearings. They played a segment in which a senator was quoting Justice Roberts (I'm paraphrasing): "the way to end discrimination based on race is to end discrimination based on race." The senator goes at Sotomayor a couple times insisting that she give a yes or no answer to whether she agrees with the statement. She in various ways refuses to respond with comparable simple-mindedness.
So anyway, the ENTIRE discussion between the NPR guy and Lithwick was focused on Sotomayor's "tap dancing" without mentioning that it would be impossible to give a reasoned answer to the senator's transparent bit of idiocy in any way that could satisfy him.
I think there's a real distinction between catching someone in a double-bind through Socratic questioning and asking questions of the category "have you stopped beating your wife yet?". The later contains what Rand would call a "package deal" in which the interlocutor makes the contradiction, while the former just tries to force commitments out of the respondent until a contradictory or otherwise uncomfortable conclusion is reached. Would you contest this, and, if not, would you consider the question in the later category or the former?
I have always hated the Socratic method, for just this reason. It's about getting a "win", rather than an attempt to arrive at real understanding.
He wants this question answered with a yes or a no. Nobody who's not over there on the fringe right with Justice Roberts could answer with a "yes, I agree" to the question and it's implications. "Yes, we've arrived at a nirvana of parity in which all are equal." Do you believe that? It's the only way to answer an honest "yes" to his question.
And if she answers no? My goodness, she's caught out in a logical inconsistency. Ooh, the embarrassment.
There is no real attempt at finding meaning here. He's baiting, and his only intention is to make points with people as ill-intentioned as he is.
And of course, this is what senators do at hearings. My complaint is about the coverage of the exchange - that Sotomayor was playing games, "tap dancing".
And of course, this is what senators do in hearings. My complaint is about the news coverage of the exchange - Sotomayor was playing games, "tap dancing."
I think 35-40% is on the mark, Coates.
Based on what?
Seriously! Based on what?!?!? And what's with the amen choir (I think 35-40% is on the mark, Coates)?
I'm seeing a lot of armchair statisticians, but no charts, graphs, regressions, you know, research or evidence. Coates, I think a line was crossed that did not need to be.
This Pew Center poll doesn't seem remotely consistent with 35-40% of whites being actively hostile toward blacks or actively disliking them. In 2006, their numbers (I think from phone surveys) were that around 82% of whites had a broadly favorable view of blacks. (Similarly, around 80% of blacks had a broadly favorable view of whites.) I think these poll numbers are consistent with other polls of this kind.
More broadly, I think a country with 35-40% of whites (about 30% of the total population) actively hostile to blacks would look very different from ours. It's hard to see how Obama could have been elected, it's almost impossible to see how we'd have the widespread support that exists for antidiscimination laws, and the widespread disapproval of overt racist speech.
Here's my alternative hypothesis:
a. There's a smallish group of whites who are actively hostile to blacks, especially among older voters. They're much less than 35%--probably more like 10-15%.
b. That group is more important as a source of activists and supporters for the Republican party than it was 10 years ago, because of the W-induced shrinkage of the party.
c. That group is freaked out by all the Obama imagery--Obama and his family on all the magazines, Obama stickers everywhere during the election, his unnerving competence, etc. That makes them both louder and less careful in their phrasing than they might have been 10 years ago.
d. The internet makes it easy to see that group's output. Stories that might have been quieted down ten years ago (at least kept from becoming common knowledge) now can't be quieted down, as there's not a small group of people or companies with that power.
Psychological polling like this annoys me.
First off, those numbers are self reported, which is entirely problematic. Why? Because people's identities are not fixed monoliths. Our brains are much better thought of as a mob of opinions.
If I were to synthesize this with your hypothesis, I'd say:
a. There is a large group of white's of varying degrees of racism. Very few are openly hostile (predominantly racist) but a significant majority (say 60%) harbor an underlying unresolved internal conflict on the question of racism. Perhaps they are racist, perhaps they are not - they aren't sure until the moment you ask them. Sure as hell the right answer then is "I'm not racist!" But I bet if we could ask them when they're dreaming the results might be different.
b. True!
c. Oh so true! It's the end of times! Dogs and cats living together!
d. Yes, we are getting less racist every passing day, but the visibility of racism is going up. Acknowledging the existence of racism as that underling unresolved conflict I mentioned finally puts one on the path to gathering the data it requires for a logical resolution.
This strikes me as beside the point, as sophistry. If you think there's a real difference between (a) walking into a room filled with 100 randomly chosen Americans -- say, your local supermarket -- 35 of whom are actively hostile to you because of the color of your skin, and (b) walking into the same room where 'only' 10 or 15 of them hate you, then I think you're very much mistaken. When we get it down to 1 or 2, then maybe we can talk about a significant difference.
Welcome to a pit full of hundred snakes. I know we told you that 35 of them were poisonous, but it turns out only 10 or 15 of them are. Feel better now?
m going to accept that estimate. I'm even going to accept the low end of it. One in ten white folks are actively hostile to Black folks.
But here's the thing. Every white person in America knows at least one of them. Most white people in America knows MORE than one of them, which makes that 10% estimate look a little shaky, but that's neither here nor there right now.
So every white person knows at least one anti-Black racist. And you've heard them rant, and you say, "Look, he's a Good Guy under that." And you hear the racist jokes and laugh, forward the email reflexively. Add the folks who aren't hostile to Black folks but believe every stereotype nonetheless and you may understand how a Black person might make that 35-40% estimate.
Re (d), almost all the deeply embarrassing stories lately have had a technology component: people who mass-forward racist e-mails, people who discover that a racist tweet is forever even if you erase it, etc. 20 years ago a random ugly thought might have been shared with the person sitting next to you; now it's shared with 100s and permanently recorded as coming from you, which makes a difference in the who I was talking to, must consider the context, that's just hearsay side of denial. Now they're stuck saying "all my black friends think it's funny" and "I'm sorry I got caught."
As far as the fraction goes, I think there's a qualitative difference between a world in which 35% of whites are hostile to blacks, and one in which 10% are. I have a hard time seeing Obama get elected in that first world, for example, though that depends on the rest of the distribution. But this is kinda theoretical to me (I'm white), so maybe I'm missing some of the impact.
As far as (d) goes, note the source of this. This isn't the head of the RNC, this is an official in a smallish city government. The net lets this kind of small-time outrage (the perpetrator is small time, anyway) propogate to the whole world. That seriously skews any use of this kind of information to estimate fractions of whites who'd forward that kind of jokes or laugh at them, because there must be about a million people as prominent as this guy.
I'd guess nationally, 33% would be about right. Higher in some parts of the country, lower in others.
You know I was all ready to dispute that, but I decided to look at the Fray for the Slate article. Sweet fancy moses. I don't know if it's just the internet, but there are sure are a lot of (non)racists out there.
The Fray at Slate is where good ideas go to die.
For serious. I like the advice column Fray but aside from that it's mostly wank and fail.
It's always just a "little joke."
Always.
I would love one of these politicians to hold a news conference where they have the actual black friend of theirs stand next to them looking somber and a little pissed like Spitzer or McGreevy's wives, and the politician just cries and apologizes and resigns.
Hahaha, that's awesome. I've always suspected that they all have the same (deaf/illiterate?) black friend... he'd be busy attending all those press conferences...
Ron Christie or Juan Williams?
Nah, Jordan Carlos.
Awe yeah! That was a greatest hits of racist denials including my personal all time favorite "I have black friends" which as everyone knows means you couldn't possibly be a bigot.
I always love these, "I'm not a racist because I know black folks!" excuses. Fine. Give me your black friends' numbers so I can confirm and have a chit chat with them.
Tired of this.
Thing is, I don't really doubt them. That is, one of the things I notice about people is that they are actually quite good at compartmentalizing their lives in a way that they are able to appreciate black people on a personal level while carrying around a prejudice for blacks as a group. Actually I have found its quite common, particularly in social circumstances where people of different races live in segregated communities but nonetheless have, for various reasons, a lot of social interaction.
As for whether their black friends really appreciate their white friend's racist humor as much as the white guy thinks they do, that is a more complex question but also not necessarily a transparent lie.
Seriously? I don't tell racist jokes, but if I did I can't imagine that I would think my black friends were an ideal audience. I get in enough trouble just for saying stupid shit occasionally, never mind trying to make some racist joke! I think the guy is f*ing lying and, yes, I would REALLY love for him to produce these "black friends" who think he's so hilarious.
I suspect you aren't racist and you probably also have a more highly attuned sense of what is racist, and how black people might perceive it than say, Frago or Rieger. But if you were a racist and you nonetheless knew black people who you personally liked, I think you might tell those sort of jokes more than you think.
I grew up in D.C. which still has a lot of southern-ness to it, very segregated in many ways but in which a lot of black and white people find themselves in common social settings. I could tell a lot of stories about this sort of thing. I remember in one of my first jobs after I graduated college, I worked where there were a different group of guys every day and which was about 30-40% black on any particular day. As often happens in these situations, the groups tended to segregate. I noticed a lot of really interesting dynamics in that setting but for the purposes of this issue, the one I am thinking about was this one awkward white guy who was always trying to fit in by joking around and used to blurt out things to a group of black guys like, "Lets go rape some white women!" It made people uncomfortable and sometimes people told him that but no one ever really ripped him as racist for it because it seemed pointless. The dude obviously had some really disturbing racial attitudes but he was also kind of a loser and it was obvious that he was actually trying to be friendly in an incredibly stupid way. No one really wanted to go through the trouble of starting a fight with the guy.
Now if you asked that guy, after you heard him tell one of his jokes, he would probably tell you that he had black friends who thought it was funny. He would be wrong. He didn't really have black friends and they didn't think he was funny, but at lest superficially, he perceives it as the truth so he wouldn't by lying exactly.
I really think this sort of thing happens a lot and part of it is what thewaythid remarks on below. People think that they have friends who like them when they really don't. But I also think this is because there are a lot of contexts in which people interact in a semi friendly way where people feel like it just isn't worth it to catch a case over some stupid comment. The commenter then feels like they have been validated as non-racist, non-sexist etc.
Or it could be one of those situations where (some) white folks confuse an acquaintance with a friend. Sure, you and the mailman are on a first-name basis, but that doesn't mean you're friends. I've run into that quite a bit.
Where I come from, what Rieger said was plainly racist. But I think the interesting thing to do would be to take him at his word. That is, he honestly believes what he is doing isn't racist. Now then, for Rieger, and others of his social or political stripe, what does it mean to be (or not be) a "racist?" Because I'm genuinely curious and can't for the life of me figure it out.
I would imagine that they define lynching, cross burning and jim crow-style segregation as racist. Anything short of these now seems to be covered by either simply a difference of opinion or an exercise in free speech giving extremely thin cover to some really disgusting sentiment.
I don't know if the 35-40 percent guess was an offhand joke or what, but as TH is someone who's usually so careful not to lump giant masses of highly varied people into simple categories (and has taught me, as I continue to read his blog, to be careful about doing the same), I found the remark kind of disappointing.
I wonder what the response would be if I, as a white guy, speculated about the percentage of black people that don't like white people or maybe just Pat Buchanan? Or maybe it would be best for me to just keep my mouth shut?
Oh come off of it. What is going on today? Everybody's so damn thin-skinned...
*chuckle* Unintentional irony ftw? After all, I'm sure you have plenty of white friends who would "roll on the floor in laughter" at the 35-40% joke.
Not even remotely equal in their offensiveness, to be sure, but your joke was still pretty darn offensive and a remarkably self-defeating choice given the whole point of your post.
I didn't say I was offended. I said I was disappointed. It just seems like the same kind of throw-away lazy categorizing that you always (rightly) take other journalists to task for.
What if those people then came back to you: "Why are you so thin-skinned?"
What I most value about this blog and reading your writing every damn day is how much I have learned about how I and other well-meaning people unconsciously and lazily make mental shortcuts and lump people into large, easily-described groups.
So I'm always more careful now whenever I find myself thinking like that, or at least I try to be. It's a process and I'm still learning. So it's disappointing to see the guru himself making the same newbie mistake... or at least that's what it looks like to me. That's all I wanted to get across.
Let's read the original sentence:
I don't understand how this is generalizing about white people. It specifically says a significant minority, and then takes a random guess at how many that might be. Why is that disappointing? Specifically, what bothers you about that phrase...
I was offended by TNC's joke.
I've contacted Zell Miller and we will be holding a press conference and demanding reparations for the emotional turmoil the joke has caused us personally and white America as a whole.
I think this actually makes TNC's final point in the post.
The racists always seem to vanish whenever we see any mysterious spontaneous racism rears it head, precisely because our society continues to struggle under the illusion that racism is a fringe phenomenon.
Exactly. The offense isn't the joke. The offense is taking from a series of these incidents the possibility that a significant minority of this country white population is, in fact, racist. Racists aren't offensive. Talking about racism is. Scratch that, not even talking about racism--asserting that large number of people "really dislike black people" is offensive.
Seems to me it's an empirical question, but one with a lot of emotional baggage. These are depressingly common in discussions of race--if we start talking about crime rates or IQ statistics, we're talking about empirical questions, but the topic is going to stir up some anger and hurt feelings. And if we switch to the history of discrimination and slavery, then again, we'll be discussing questions of fact, and again, it will stir up a lot of anger and hurt feelings.
But numbers are numbers, facts are facts, and getting too mad or upset by discussion of them to learn anything is a guaranteed lose.
Shenanigans. First of all, you were clearly equating racism with "really dislik[ing] black people" (and, even further, suggesting that expressing dislike for Al Sharpton was racist code). It's just disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Second, you're presenting a strawman. No one is suggesting either that "racists aren't offensive" or that "talking about racism" is. What I and others are saying is that stereotyping large percentages of white people as racist is offensive. In fact, it's racist.
I think the notion that this sentence...
...is "racist" says all that needs to be said. I leave you to it.
Dude, you asserted that a large percentage of a particular racial group has an extreme character flaw and then cited a particularly egregious example as "evidence".
If it's really so hard for you to grasp how that could be racist, just flip it around:
"[Such and such] is actually revealing a significant minority of black folks, (35-40 percent? Too optimistic?) who are not criminals, but just really really don't like /authority/ obeying the law. Take this latest installment in what is, basically, a weekly drama:
[Insert sensationalistic story about black guy car-jacking white woman.]"
See the racism now?
But the assertion is about a statement that has objective truth or falsehood. There is some fraction of whites who are hostile to blacks. It may be easy or hard to measure this (easy to get self-report data from polls, harder to get other kinds of data), but we're talking about a statement of fact. So it seems weird to be offended by it, other than on grounds of "I don't think that's correct."
Based on what I have seen and read, I suspect the real number is closer to 10% now, but I don't think you'd have to go that far back in time to get up to 35% or higher. And I don't see that Ta-Nehisi's comment would be more racist now than in 1970, say.
Please point out why it's offensive. Again here is the sentence:
I'd love to hear why it's offensive. Is it offensive because I'm arguing that a significant minority of white people don't like blacks? Is it offensive because the estimate is 35-40 percent? Is it offensive because I added, "too optimistic"? What specifically is offensive. And why.
Also to help clarify:
These aren't equivalents, but I wouldn't be offended at all by this. I think the number of blacks who don't like white people, is actually shockingly high.
I cut out the Al Sharpton part, so let's throw that in too. Is it the idea that some white people claim to not like Al Sharpton, but actually don't like black people?
I don't want to be one of those guys claiming that "reverse racism" is as bad as racism or that we poor white folks have it so tough. I made my initial comment more out of a respect for intellectual consistency than out of injured white liberal feelings. It just seemed very... un-subtle and offhand and not like you.
It really wouldn't give you pause if I came out and said "I suspect that about 40% of black people don't like white people" based on the fact that I heard of a specific incident of someone telling or emailing "white guy jokes"? Especially if it was clear I had no idea what the actual figure was? Maybe it IS 40%. Maybe it's higher. I just don't think it's helpful to be guessing. And it doesn't seem in the spirit of this blog.
Not really--I'm trying to think here. Again, the thing is, black people make racist cracks about white people all the time. It shows up in a different ways, for historical reasons--no one sends racist jokes about Bush, for instance. But it's there.
You're point about "the spirit of this blog" has given me something to think about. I take that critique--even if I don't know what the "spirit" is. I still take it.
Um, I just have to chime in that I am really chuckling at this whole thread ... Duuuuude! (as we say), you really pissed off some of your white commenters!
It happens every two or three months. It's no biggie. We come from different worlds. It's part of the dialogue. I try to engage it as much as I can. We all learn from each other.
35-40%, by my estimation...
The reverse scenario that Ilya came up with wouldn't give me pause, either - and I think the difference helps to explain why people are objecting to your number, too.
The key is that many folks would give those blacks who don't like white people the benefit of the doubt as far as their reasons go. They'd figure, they've suffered racism, maybe they remember all the horror stories from the Civil Rights days, maybe they get pulled over every second Friday night, etc, etc. The logic goes, It'd get to you after a while, and yeah, you probably wouldn't like white folks so much. (Is that patronizing? I dunno.) People - us guilted-up bleeding heart white liberals, anyway - understand that. Whereas there's no excuse for whites who don't like black people - it's just straight-up racism. (I'm not trying to claim some sort of double standard here, by the way, just pointing out what I think would be a common difference in perception. Black who doesn't like white = Jaded, embittered, whatever. White who doesn't like black = Racist. Because what on earth do we have to be upset about?)
Whew. All that to say, what's "offensive" (although I'm not sure that's the right word, more on that in a sec) is what's implied by labeling that 35-40% as probable racists. I was raised to believe that racists are the lowest of the low, the scum of the freakin' earth. And it's not that I don't think these people don't exist - they clearly do, and, I'm sure, in larger numbers than I fully realize. I think what gets people upset (me, anyway) is when the number gets big, it's hard not to feel like maybe the speaker is including you in it.
Remember my comment on the other thread, it was the same thing, you didn't understand why it stung to hear someone say something about "many whites" expecting blacks to be stupid. You said the same thing there, that it's a qualified statement. But, like "many," "35-40%" just isn't a very narrow qualification, really. You say "significant minority" but four-sixths is dangerously near majority territory. So, do you really believe that almost half of whites "really don't like black people"?
I quit reading the Root because I felt like too many of their writers thought all or most whites were racist. I don't think that's true, but hearing it also just makes me feel like shit. Like, that chick behind me in line at the grocery counter earlier, does she assume I'm a racist? Does she hate me? It's hard to carry on a conversation, as we try to do here, when you suspect the person across from you has already made up their mind about you being scum. Or even that they figure there's a 1 in 3 chance that you're scum.
I'm rambling, I'm sorry. Just honestly trying to answer your question about why the 35-40% thing seems to have gotten folks riled up. It's hard to parse a gut feeling like that, you know? But I read it and was like, Wow. 40%? Shitty.
I'll give you a better equivalent. Are you offended by the notion that 35 to 40 percent of men are sexist? Are 65 percent? 85 percent? 100 percent? Are you offended by the notion that 70 percent of people are homophobic? 90 percent? 99 percent? None of these scenarios actually offend me. Why would they? I may debate the number, but that's different than actually being offended--or even disappointed--by the assertion.
But the difference between those -isms and all your others lies in this statement:
I would suggest that, if you believe this, you will likely be offended at least once a week by this blog. And frankly, it's good that you are. The problem with this statement is what lies beneath--the ="lowest of the low" sounds like a qualitative judgment to you, but it's actually a quantitative one too. In terms of morality, the "lowest of the low" connotes the marginalized, the dregs of humanity, the trolls under the bridge.
This definition of racism is very reason why, when people are accused of it, their friends say things like, "No, he's a really good person." or "No, he has black friends." The notion being that racists are monsters who hide somewhere, and come out at night to menace the population.
Racists are not "the lowest of the low"--indeed they are often the most respectable of the respected. Every week we hear about a civil servant caught mailing e-mails--like the one above--to coworkers. These people aren't "the lowest of the low." Pat Buchanan is racist. He's also holds a plum spot at one of the biggest media outfits in the world. The reason why he holds that spot is because so many people who work with him find him utterly charming. He may well be a great father. He may be a great husband, and an exceedingly loyal friend. But he's a racist, too.
The world would be a much easier place if racist were, as you put it, "the scum of the earth." They aren't. Like homophobes and sexists, they can be our best friends. That's why we're still fighting this fight. That's why it's so hard to root out. Because it tend to pop up in people we love.
I welcome you to be offended at me. I welcome you to be disappointed in me. But I'd encourage you to consider the point. I'd encourage to follow, and join in, on our Civil War threads. Understanding that Robert E. Lee, was the most upright of human beings, and yet on his way to Gettysburg he kidnapped free black people and sold them into slavery will tell you a lot about racism. It will tell you even more about people.
It's good that you were offended. I don't mean to be an ass. But half of what animates me is the belief that people who believe that racism exists strictly amongst the "scum of the earth" need a wake-up call.
Nice reply, TNC. I think you nailed it, completely.
I'm about to get slaughtered because I lack the skills to articulate my point properly, but here it goes anyway...
Can we please invent a new word for "racist"? I say this because, IMHO, "racist" has become synonomous (sp?) with a sheet wearing, Nazi worshiping SOB, and completely ignores everything else. This is why it's so easy to dismiss "racism."
URGHHH.....
Why do you think it's necessary for us to come up with a new word for racist? The word racist has negative connotations because it's a NEGATIVE word. There might be certain segments of the population who might think that the word only applies to the KKK, but if someone can't understand the nuances in the word and in people's behaviors I don't really see how that's my problem.
How about people just make an effort to NOT be racist? Now there's a thought...
Point taken, but I say this because, IMHO, every person harbors at least a little racism in their hearts. It's ironic because, our mutual flaws are representative of our common humanity. Unfortunately the term "racist" has become so distorted as to render it useless and easy to dismiss.
I simply wish there were a more useful term to describe those whom espouse "soft bigotry" with a term which would make them more likely to explore their own preconceptions. "Racist" won't do it.
I hope that makes sense.
All of us might harbor a little "racism" in our hearts (and I actually don't agree with that, I think it's more like bigotry, and that's different,) but it doesn't mean we have to act on it. As a woman, I could care less that when I pass a man on the street he might have all kinds of inappropriate thoughts about me, but that's why people keep that ish to themselves. And if you say some crazy mess to me out loud, I'm allowed to call you on it.
What TNC is posting about is act of racism. Sending out emails that specifically insult the race of the President of the United States and his family is RACISM. It's not soft-bigotry, it's racist. Plain and simple.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Well there is an important distinction to be made between people who consciously think whites are better than other races and/or would be willing to actively work against minorities on the one hand, and on the other hand people who don't think of themselves as racist but still harbor various prejudices that may affect the way they act towards other races, often unconsciously. The distinction shows how far we have to go, plus while true out-and-out racists are lost causes, people who don't want to be racist are still reachable.
Or you could make the distinction between those who hate black folks (a group of people very much on their way out) and those who fear them. Fear is the dominant emotion in racial relations nowadays, I think--I'd say Ta-Nehisi's figure is too high as written, but if amended to include those who fear or are not comfortable around black people it would be far too low. You can use the same word for all of this if you like--that's a call people who experience racism get to make, not me--but Awesom0 is right. It turns off people who might otherwise be reachable, and forces us to constantly have this relatively pointless conversation parsing the different flavors of racism.
(as for the OP, that guy at best is someone who doesn't think of himself as a racist but doesn't have the decency to even try to keep his own prejudices in check. that's a very charitable interpretation, too)
Hard to make a good guestimate without a better working definition of racist but whatever the number, and your probably close, it's way too high. Now I do believe that this is changing with the generational demographics but for our lifetimes at least this will be an ongoing issue of political impact/significance. So we identify these folks as racist, publicize it, and then? Seriously what we should we do with/to them?
Also this increased reporting of such outrages is somewhat hopeful in that while always present these events weren't always seen as newsworthy.
Since I don't have Cable and watch little TV, haven't even hooked up my digital converter box yet, I've been watching Dave Chappelle's comedy on DVD and YOUTUBE. The man is funny. A comedic genius perhaps. He deals with race in an amusing way.
It seems to me if you want to make a racially tinged joke it should at least be funny. This shit, and I do mean shit, isn't even funny.
I have an uncle whose favorite joke used to be:
"What do you call the first black President?"
"Nigger".
I saw him around Christmas and I asked him that question because I knew it would annoy him.
My answer to the question:
President Obama.
His version. Not funny and it telegraphs the answer from a mile away.
My version. Annoyed the hell outta him. Which was funny at least to me.
First rule of jokes. TRY to make it at least a bit funny.
An outspoken orthodox-jew friend of mine said that someone tried to tell him that joke, but in response to the question (I think he knew where it was going) he drew himself up, stuck his finger in the mans chest and said "YOU CALL HIM 'SIR!'" That was the end of that line of questioning.
Re: the 35-40% figure... I think it's important to define our terms. Being racist and "really disliking black people" are not necessarily one and the same. It's possible to have racist ideas, thoughts, stereotypes, etc. without necessarily strongly or even moderately "dislking" the group towards whom those thought or stereotypes are harbored. I really don't think that 35-40% of white Americans strongly dislike blacks as individuals, but I think it's possible that that percentage of the white population maintains attitudes that the majority of people reading this blog would consider retrograde and probably racist, even if they aren't necessarily *malicious*.
In any case, it's possible that TNC's figure is a bit too high. Yet, maybe it's too low as well: after all, I think that basically everyone, whether they want to or not, has certain prejudices and pre-conceived notions based on race. If we want to call THAT racism, then the figure may be closer to 100% of ALL Americans, not simply whites. Of course, a great many of us work in our conscious, active lives not to accept those notions: but the way society is structured, and the way history has progressed, it's exceedingly difficult to eradicate those prejudices from ever fiber of our being. That's the GOAL, no doubt, but it's always important to be aware that none of us are wholly immune from it.
I think what I'm talking about here is the concept of structural racism. A person may be a fundamentally decent individual, a fair-minded, progressive, compassionate person who truly cares about equality and social justice, but is nonetheless a member of society and world civilization, and cannot completely escape the dynamics by which our society operates, and will to some degree still have these prejudices on some level, even if they are not conscious or desired.
I dunno, I hope I haven't said anything here that anyone would take serious issue with... do any of you folks agree/disagree?
The comments that Rieger made *were* malicious, racist, etc.
I think it's the "dislike" that comes into question here.
Certainly implicit stereotyping is almost universal but the negative associations the racial animosity is still a problem centered in white America.
That sort of gets into System Justification Theory but in short our society does not make it easy for whites, in particular to shake racism.
So much of out entire culture is like enabling racism addicts.
I would just submit, that most white people, for most of this country's history, have underestimated racism. It's only ever conceded 50 years later. Don't take that as a flaw specific to white people. Folks do what's in their immediate interests. And they tend to see the world from the perspective of their immediate interests.
Better put, folks see the world through the lens of their experiences. Good example: I find it unfathomable that men actually cat-call women as much as women claim they do. I don't see it as much. It doesn't happen to me. It never happens when I'm walking with a woman. One way of dealing with this is humility. I concede a certain amount of blindness, and defer to those who might have some direct experience.
I would just submit, that most white people, for most of this country's history, have underestimated racism.
I remember the day that this crystallized for me. I'd used cash to purchase some groceries at a big chain grocery store one evening after work and, while walking to my car, I chucked out the receipt. As I put my cash back in my wallet, I realized I'd been stiffed -- I'd handed the cashier a $20 and he'd thought it was a $10. In I went, walked up to the guy, and said, "Hey, you shorted me. I gave you a $20, not a $10." He opened the till, handed me my money without comment, and off I went. As I got into my car, it hit me: Were I not a white man dressed in khakis and a polo shirt, the odds of me getting that money back without a hassle or having to dig through that trash can were slim to none.
...or the guy was stealing from everybody and the easiest way to keep doing his thing was to pay you fast and get you out of there before you ruined his gig.
I understand your point. But I think it over reaches.
I also see what TNC is doing here. His comment was fairly tame, but now there are now approaching 150 or so posts saying "I'm offended, how can you say 40% have rascist feelings!! Me? How dare you?" I'm a liberal!"
Look, I grew up in the military. It was a very mixed environment. Us military brats were very color blind.
But, 40%+- of this group still said rascist things from time to time. Not to be rascist. Just because it was ingrained. Usually we laughed it off or threw some other lame sh-t around then went back to being friends.
TNC's point of rascist things are deep in people it will take a loooooonnnng time for it to go away.
This place is helping this process. We need more like it.
I think you're absolutely right that white people tend to underestimate the pervading amount of racism in our society. But I also wanted to chime in with some discomfort about the 35-40% figure. Not because I think the figure is too high, but because it kind of implies that you can easily divide up the white population into racist and not racist segments.
Like, for example, Pat Buchanan's explicit appeals to white resentment work in some areas, kinda sorta work in others, and are counterproductive in others. But even in those liberal areas where Pat Buchanan turns people off, how many whites wouldn't feel a sense of discomfort if, over the course of five years, black families moved into half of the houses on their block? And how many white single-family homeowners, even in supposedly liberal places like West L.A., work to exclude lower-cost, denser housing in their neighborhoods, in part because of fears of the "sort of people" that would move in? (In L.A., this is mostly fears of "too many" Mexicans moving in.)
So yeah, there are different degrees of racism. There's the KKK Nazi cross-burners who are a tiny segment of society. There's the fairly significant group that responds positively to Pat Buchanan (this is maybe your 35-40% figure, nationally). And then there's about 99% of white people (self included, if you really pressed me on it) who still get unconscious racist thoughts when we're meeting people for the first time, are uncomfortable in situations where there are a whole lot of black people, etc., but don't let those thoughts dominate them or their opinions of people of different ethnicities.
Good point.
Yes -- as with the catcalls, exactly. It's strange, and when I tell black friends this they never quite believe me -- so I don't know, maybe I'm very naive, or very oblivious, but I have to say, I haven't heard anyone make a racist joke in my presence in 30 years. Honestly, it just never happens. Racist emails, or emails with racist jokes: no one sends them to me. "There goes the neighborhood" kind of comments, never. Otherwise obviously racist remarks -- very occasionally. Usually, it pains me to say, from cops. Never heard a white person say the word "nigger" (except in quotes, as I just did, or in the movies), that I recall -- not once in my life. I mean, heard it personally, as opposed to hearing it reported from, say, Al Campanis. Or from supposedly hip people like Patty Smith, being dumb-asses. It's possible -- it's more than possible -- that overtly racist things are said and I don't catch them, but I don't know: I'm pretty damn sensitive to anti-semitism (though I don't look all that Jewish and most people assume I'm Italian), and I can think of only two occasions when I've ever heard anyone in my immediate presence say anything overtly anti-semitic. I hear anti-Mexican stuff slightly more often, though still quite rarely; homophobic slurs, again, very occasionally; used to hear anti-Arab stuff a little more often, but much less so these days. Misogynist stuff, depending on how you identify it, considerably more often (including a few times from my own mouth...)
What does this mean? Nothing in particular, since it's only my experience. It certainly doesn't mean that these things aren't said, or that more covert forms of racism aren't very prevalent, perhaps even more prevalent. But I do think that one of the reasons why these guys' "jokes" are so shocking is just that this sort of thing isn't done anymore. It's like spanking your kids, or drunk driving: it used to be acceptable, or at least only mildly disturbing. Now, it's utterly shameful.
I don't know how to judge whether or not this represents a real advance, or just a way for racism to go underground, but I think it does account for why white folks can find it hard to see how prevalent racism can be.
When black people tell me they tell me that they hear that kind of shit all the time, in all sorts of forms, I definitely believe them, though.
I'm going to agree (although I'm going to put it at 20 years). I think one of the problems we have here is what my friends and I used to call the 'focus group of one' problem. Everybody has a perspective, but no one has a statistically significant one all by his or herself. So sure I don't hear a lot of overt racism, but that's a function of where I live and work. I have always suspected that the landslide county phenomenon has a lot to do with the fact that people just don't assume that since I'm white they can assume a shared racism. I work in a pretty diverse environment, but I live in Chicago which is pretty damned segregated - although I still don't hear it from my neighbors.
Years ago I read an article (I think by Roy Wilkins) that made the observation that black don't meet as many racists as white people because white people (at least in some circles) were starting to hide their racism in a mixed audience in a way that they didn't in an all white audience. I think the fact that in some parts of the country that silence has extended to all white groups as well is a positive sign.
I would assume for some of us, 35-40% seems way high. But for others probably (sadly) not.
I hear you. I'm a college-educated white liberal woman. Among my friends, I never ever hear racist jokes. Er, well, unless you include my friends from high school. Or self-racist jokes (Indians making jokes about indians, Jews making jokes about jews). I have never been emailed a racist joke. Er, I think. I would be shocked if I were emailed a racist joke. Unless it came from someone I could more or less expect that from.
But I hear racist jokes, and see racist things in the outhouses, at work. I'm a construction worker. Sometimes I wonder if people would censor themselves more if I were black, but I suspect not. I had a black apprentice once who I talked to about it once, and he said he heard the jokes, too. Almost always followed by "I don't mean you, of course". As in "Oh, no, dude, you're cool, it's just your people I have a problem with". That makes it all okay and warm and fuzzy, doesn't it?
Anyhow, my meandering point is that cultures vary wildly in this country (and by "culture" I mean culture by any means- race, class, geography, pop influences, age...) and I have my foot in two camps, and looking into the compartmentalization in my head- "none of my friends- er, well..." I can see how Feivel's experience and your average black person's can be so incomprehensively different. Sometimes I look at one half of my life from the other half, and I can't believe it. So I have a lot of latitude for imagining that another person's social world is completely different from mine. And I move in some circles where a person would no more crack a racist joke than get up and take a shit on the dinner table. Then I go to work, and racist jokes or just straight-up racist invective happens openly.
I understand that "not liking black people" is different from keeping them out of your restaurant with an ax handle or out of your neighborhood with threats, rocks, fires, and explosions.
I don't understand how it can possibly not be racism.
It's a pure form of seeing someone's race and closing your mind to their individual work, individual personalities, and everything else about them other than their race.
I think you've put your finger on a useful point; maybe a 'working definition' of racism is someone's inability to see a person as an individual, only as a part of a 'race.'
When my nephew was a young teen, I remember arguing with him about his dislike of gay people. At one point I said something like,"if you've spent time with a lot of gay people and you don't like them because they smell funny or have bad table manners, that's one thing. But if you don't like them because of your 'idea' of what they are, that's bigotry, plain and simple."
I agree with you: "not liking black people" really is bald-faced racism. My comment is not very eloquent; yours is. Thanks.
(The punch line to my story is that I introduced my nephew to some lesbian friends. He later reported to me: "Now I don't hate gay people anymore. And, did you know that the clitoris is just for pleasure?" For thinking people, bigotry becomes unsupportable when they get to know the targets of their hatred.)
As the official spokesman for white America and "Cracker Ass Cracker" in chief I think you need to give Rieger and the rest of the people who enjoy such stupid jokes a break.
Imagine the shock to their "internal clocks" last November when they watched the election returns coming in.
I can only think of the famous George C Scott screaming scene in the movie "Hardcore".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izb_-1QqifA&feature=related
Speaking of racism, some guy posted this: http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2009/06/white-teacher-speaks-out-what-is-it.html on a politics board I frequent, and called it "an interesting read". I was amazed that a guy (Nemko) who is apparently an opinion columnist at the san fransico chronicle and US news as well as a host for an NPR affiliate would endorse such a racist rant. Shouldn't people who approve of such thinking be shunned by the rest of society? Not given NPR jobs.
Jesus. Reading that, and the comments, 35-40 seems way, way low. I'm convinced that the number is something like 125-150% Am I crazy, or are Glibertarians way, way more racist than your run-of-the-mill conservative? Why is that?
no Christ love for the libs? ;)
I would have thought that on this board, at least, we'd be clear on the distinction between "racist" and "bigoted". Pat Buchanan is bigoted. I think we're all racist to some degree. It's well-established that people of all pigments and plumbing are more easily influenced by people they perceive to be "like" them.
Do you know the trick to washing the dishes faster? Try to see through the suds and the murky water to tell whether the pot is clean or not. That way, you don't rinse it off just to find you missed a spot, and have to do it again. I see racism, and all the other human biases as kind of like that sudsy, murky water. We're never going to get rid of it, but we can learn to see through it.
I think that's a great visual description and approach.
I am convinced that some degree of racism is part of the human condition. It can be minimized, but not eradicated, by good faith effort. The same is true of stupidity more broadly.
Calling someone stupid, however, is meaningless as well as mean-spirited. Everyone is a little bit stupid, and learning is possible. Far more useful, though less fun, to say that a particular statement was stupid.
Accepting that internalized racism (even racism you'd rather not be there) exists is a good first step to getting over it.
But I see where you're coming from. In addition to not calling racist people racist (so as not to startle them into defensiveness) let's also promote honesty about it.
This isn't about me, but I'll go first as an example... I am racist against black people. I'm sad to say it's true! No... I don't think they are inferior, or send out racist email. I'm really GLAD to have black people around - but they make me uncomfortable! They're strange! And I think even that's undeniably racist. I am culturally isolated from blackness, and that make's it really easy to draw a line and start tossing ignorant conclusions.
When I run into a black stranger here in town it's a little weird, because there are so few. I look at this person a little differently and treat them special (I try to make sure I treat them positively, rather than negatively, but I worry I may harbor negative reactions too!)
And Black people here are really White culturally in a lot of ways. "Real" black people are probably even harder for me to handle! But I embrace that - I know if I'm gonna get over it I need to go appreciate their culture and be there. And it's fun!
You know all those "rich white kids who think they're black" - that's annoying isn't it? The posers! Stealing black culture... Partly too, that's racism ending. Strange as it looks, I think it is.
And my racism knows no bounds! It's true for Chinese people too =( and also Mexicans (oh no!) But I work on it! I think about it. I know it isn't right - I'd rather treat everyone like an individual, but culture sneaks up on your mind.
That's the kind of honesty we need to end racism. Go hang out with some other races and be open about your own insecurities. You'll get over it. Hell, you can even be critical of other races - just make sure you get yourself INFORMED first by being in the culture.
This is my opinion - which may be valueless now that I've established my racism - but I suspect this is good process. It's that whole embracing diversity thing I learned somewhere. What do ya'll think?
(And on another note: on the internalized racism test, I'm "Slightly Racist," but (I'm quite proud to say) I do not associate Men with Careers and Women with Family) Feminism Works!)
As a small note of support, I'll share that I've been bugged since TNC's post by the inability to think of any black people I know personally and dislike for an individual reason. I can instantly think of a dozen white people I know and dislike for individual reasons. It's another sign that my small town is way too short on diversity.
Uh, okay, I'll go second- I'm racist, too. When I see strangers, I make quite different assumptions about them depending on their race. I do this, and I catch myself, and I think "really? since when?" The erased assumption none the less leaves a trace, a pull- either towards that assumption or towards its opposite. I am vaguely concerned about the segregation of my social life, but actively trying to desegregate it- well, I'm not sure whether it's not a priority or not a value- as in, taking up some particular activity with the active purpose of getting to know more non-white people seems a little weird. I know not to take my internalized racist attitudes seriously, and I try hard to notice them and "interrogate" them, as the English majors would say.
I've certainly been defensive about racism, too- heard something I believed or said or did called out as racist (never personally), and I always react defensively and think of a million reasons why that could never have been racist. But I try to think beyond that, and I certainly have come round on some of them and realized that I was taking a racist attitude. It's really hard to see that right away. It's really hard to not be defensive straight off.
I just want to say to the world in general that defensiveness at first or in public doesn't mean no impact was made and no lesson was learned. And thank you to everyone who has (thanklessly) called me on my shit over the years... I'm better for it, and I never thanked you at the time...
Um.... Ok, honestly? I'm not sure it's 35-40% either, but I don't know what I base that on (other than perhaps my fond hopes as a white woman?), and I'm not sure that throat-jumping down is called for. I say, off-handed comments for the sake of illustrating a larger point FTW!
The man had a Larger Point.
(And, not for nothing, but I don't think anyone thought that Mr. Coates was trying to suggest a number that resulted from rigorous statistical research. Tone is important, too. Just, you know, sayin'. Sheesh.)
I would have thought the 35-40% number was high, too, but really, what the hell do I know? What I'm finding fascinating about the fallout of the Obama presidency is how many white people are being outed as not the least bit apologetic about their racism. They may not even think they "don't like black people"--they may think they have a great relationship because they're utterly fucking clueless. I mean, seriously? This guy Rieger? He really believes his black friends find his jokes hilarious?
But he probably believes he has a great relationship with black people--"some of my best friends are black." And you can see how he courts their friendship.
So here's this guy Rieger, and there was that GOP senator's staffer who sent out her racist email, and there was the GOP political operative who made the Michelle Obama/gorilla crack--these people have no sense of shame about what they're saying because they honestly don't think there's anything wrong with what they're saying. They are just that lacking in self-awareness, in self-examination, and in compassion.
The uncontested and overwhelming election of a black president has got to be so confusing to these folks that they don't even know how to react. What was the quote from the Civil War diarist from earlier today, about the black soldiers defeating Confederate troops? "There must be some mistake"? This is where the "birther" movement and its related ugliness comes from, I think, as well as this rash of staggeringly racist and utterly unapologetic incidents: these folks are feeling like Obama's election "must be some kind of mistake," and they're venting their frustration through this ugliness.
As a white person, I'm shocked at what's coming out of the woodwork. I really did think we'd made strides. Black folks must find my naivete HILARIOUS. I'm really sorry.
So here's my next question: is it a good thing that all this stuff if coming out into the open? Is it easier to be able to identify the people who despise you, instead of just assuming all white people do? Or does it make you suspect that, well, all white people do?
Sorry, that should read "Frago" for "Rieger;" I got all befuddled in my outrage.
I like the idea, as was stated above, that perhaps we should create a new word for "racist".
Something new because the word "racist" has so much baggage.
Just think of what Dan Savage did for former Senator Santorum.
He made him immortal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_%28sexual_neologism%29
A lot of white supremacists like to describe themselves as "racialists," and I think it's a useful label for us to adopt as well.
"Racialist" specifically describes those people who openly advocate an explicit white supremacist ideology (i.e. neo-Nazis, skinheads, Klansmen), while "racist" is much more general.
Adopting that label would help provide an important distinction between unapologetic white-power extremists and the "I'm not a racist" crowd.
This is a plea to all black people with white friends: When your friend makes an off-color joke about black people, refuse to laugh. Please. If you laugh or even chuckle, it gives people like Frago enough daylight to say crap like, "Well my black friends think it's funny."
This reminds me of one of the discussions on this blog about the Confederate battle flag and whether it has lost its meaning. (as if!) To illustrate the new, no-hate-intended, it's-really-just-fashion aspect of the Confederate battle flag, one commenter mentioned a black duck-hunting buddy who wore the Confederate flag as a belt buckle.
C'mon, black people, when we do crap like this, the terrorists win.
I think this falls under the "I'm not a racist but I play one on T.V." motif.
oh well.
It's like D.L. Hugley said on Kings of Comedy. If someone can find the quote I would be obliged. (No time at present)
"People always like to say I'm not racist I had 6 black people over at my house for a barbecue just last week. MFer, if you can count how many black people been over to your house MFer you racist."
"Saying my black friends think its funny misses the point. Yeah, they think its funny your white friends thik you're a racist."
the last part is me no quotations sorry.
Who knows what the percentage really is of white folks who *really* don't like black folks. But it might be about the same as the percentage of black folks who *really* don't like white folks. Possibly some evolutionary psychology at work here. It's just that the first relationship matters more in this instance since whites are the majority. Sort of a 'with power comes responsibility'-type argument. If you are in the minority you kind of get a free pass in that your bigoted views of the majority just don't matter much as they don't transfer into society-wide discrimination.
Evolutionary psychology is powerful and dangerous. It's incredibly easy to draw false conclusions. Moreover, what is evolved cultural adaptation vs genetic adaptation (a question ultimately unimportant, but crucial to understanding evolutionary psychology.)
And lastly, evolved (or natural) does not equal right!
That said, I agree with you. You want to see if someone's really racist or not (and here I have to stray and bleed racism with xenophobia of any kind), get inter-cultural sex on the table and see how they deal with that.
I think we're a lot better about it than we used to be, but man - people can harbor a lot of goodwill until they see who's coming home for dinner. Then the walls come down.
Exactly. From the article: Jensen, who is also author of "The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege," said that the disappearance of overt racism in polite society only means it has gone underground. Racial jokes for instance, may be meant in jest, but they are not just jokes. "They are a sign of a deeply entrenched white supremacist idealogy in this country," Jensen said.
Racist jokes reinforce this world view cloaked in humor, he said. But they are also expressions of power in and of themselves, he said.
They essentially communicate that the teller can say denigrating things with impunity. If you feel comfortable saying such things in a private setting, he said, that fact signals an implicit understanding among your compatriots that it is OK to say such things.
I've got a brand new objection to this post.
The racism that matters most right now isn't fuckheads calling Obama a gorilla. It's more the headline writers who pull the 'Obama Tells Blacks: You're Lazy" trick, and the people who say, "I don't see race at all. I don't care if you're black, white, green, purple ..."
That's the percentage that interests me.
I think that's the 30-40% so many people are objecting to, too!
Al Sharpton lost the support of this white boy when he hopped on the Jena 6 bandwagon. Does that make me a racist?
Maybe it isn't fair but as soon as someone starts a sentence with "I hope this doesn't sound racist" or "I'm no racist but" I immediately think that person is a racist. Someone who really didn't want to sound racist just wouldn't say whatever they were thinking. I think that's the worst kind of racism possible, I thought about this but I'm still going to say it.
I've generally found that whoever is the first to take offense when someone says something is racist is the biggest racist in the room. A test that hasn't failed me yet.
I'm such a racist some times but seriously who the fuck isn't???
My fellow white folks... please stop complaining. I thought Coates' blog was not a white-people-complaining-fest like every other site on the Internets. Please do not be so defensive, you are embarrassing me.
Admittedly, you are not embarrassing me as much as the 35% who are full-on racists. And yeah, I struggled with that number but after considering it, I think it's sadly accurate (obviously this is not "provable" in the strictest sense).
What should bother you far more than the possibility that Coates' number MIGHT be too high is the realization that there are many more white people on top of that 35% who do not go so far as to make watermelon jokes and use the n-word, but who do believe that blacks are lazy, or morally bankrupt, or something like that. When you get up to "white people who believe they are discriminated against by affirmative action," the number is probably something like 95%. Now that sucks.
but who do believe that blacks are lazy, or morally bankrupt, or something like that.
Or, too scary to share a pool in PA with. I'm sure those people didn't think they were racists either.
I'm with you on this one. What is the sensitivity and obsession over the percentage, fercrissake? Does it matter if it's 40% or 53%?
Embarrassing.
Eeesh, now we've got people getting defensive over other people getting defensive! So sorry to embarass you both.
Look, I don't see anyone losing their shit over TNC's number. I see some fairly mild-mannered objection/quibbling/questioning/discussion. (Quote away at me if I'm wrong.) Last I checked, that's what we do in the comments? Discuss?
Eva, "Eeeesh" - that's a good word.
Look, the "embarrassing" comment is more like the rolling my eyes and smiling kind of embarrassment, not deeply ashamed embarrassment.
I just find some of the very long comments, or emotional comments, in response to the inference that just maybe 35-40% of white people might be racist really amusing ... personally I don't think the number is far enough off percentage-wise to warrant so many defensive responses.
And, last I checked, I'm not the only one who gets snarky around these parts, along with all the erudite discussion. (smile)
I find it amusing that most of these comments take more issue with TNC's joke than the rest of the post. But, that's how it usually goes. Nowadays the mere accusation is worse than the crime itself. Funny how that works.
The accusation isn't worse than the crime - that doesn't make the accusation harmless, though. I think it's implicit that most regular readers here are suitably, gut-churningly horrified by comments like the one TNC cites here, but I never figured that meant we can't quibble about less horrifying statements we disagree with.
I think it can be safely assumed that the vast majority, if not 100%, of the posters here despise the things Gary Frago did. And it's a strawman argument to say that "the accusation is worse than the crime" - I haven't seen a single commenter here so much as imply that. In fact, many posters (myself included) have been very careful to explicitly state that that's NOT what we mean.
It's like when I argue with my mom about the actions of the IDF, and she says "How can you criticize Israel when North Korea is starving millions of people and Iran is stringing up gays by lampposts?" Well, of course, mom, I recognize those things are worse. Sometimes the fact that they're so blatantly wrong means you don't feel the need to spend as much time pointing it out to someone who agrees with you anyway. Sometimes you want to steer the discussion to where there is not so much all-around assent.
Yeah, what you said. Well put.
Re: GOP/white racism a weekly occurrance:
Doesn't the Aryan Nations or similar have some sort of idea about "making the differences manifest" as a prelude to starting a race war? I remember reading about it during the election...
Some of my best friends are black!
Over-sensitive, anyone ? This thread strikes me as an awful lot of hair-splitting over some off-hand speculation that was rooted in a hard reality. Or maybe it was a terribly unfair accusation and that White Leader TNC appointed a while back - I forget his name - needs to come by and give us a pep-talk about how even though White Folks constantly get accused of racism when it's not really there and have been hampered by affirmative action for decades, we need to buckle up and can't use that as an excuse not to achieve our dreams.
As I sit at my own personal table at the diner of diminished expectations I like to be able to blame someone other than myself.
Therefore which group shall I blame?
Blacks?
Jews?
Hispanics?
Gays?
Asians?
Aborigines?
Polynesians?
Aussies?
Drunken Irish?
ETC ETC ETC
How about I just go for "all of the above".
The correct answer is Eskimos. Always, always Eskimos.
Craig,
Fuckin' A, man.
I forgot, the friggin Eskimos.
Damn pasty faced seal killers.
They took my job.
Now if you will excuse me I need to get back to drinking.........
What sort of self respecting Irishman doesn't blame the English for all of their troubles?
PBK,
I don't respect myself. To paraphrase Alec Baldwin in "30 Rock" my family isn't anything but a group of mud farmers and sheep rapists".
Now on to the really important question: What the eff is a "nigger rig"?
Google seems to know....
It's a makeshift repair that doesn't look like it had any effort put into it.
It's a term used by redneck to describe their own work.
I used to work on a roofing crew where the lead would use that term.
One day after he reported "niger rigging" the compressor, I asked him "Since you did it can we just call it a racist fucking cracker rig instead?"
Making friends and influencing people since 1975.
Heh. I was wondering that myself but, frankly, was uncomfortable trying to look it up.
Pssst,
Karen/Maya
don't tell anyone, but if you run across some slang word or term and are uncertain of its meaning check out Urban Dictionary.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/
I use it frequently, since I am tragically unhip.
My point wasn't that I didn't know HOW (I'm well acquainted with Urban Dictionary); my point was that I wasn't sure I wanted to know.
But thanks for the snide.
Thanks Wallyz + Irish Pirate. I, like Karen, wasn't sure I wanted to google the term. I learned my lesson with "Cleveland steamer."
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH,
Whatever one does DO Not look up the meaning of that phrase.
TNC, as a white person I certainly wasn’t offended by the 35-40% estimate. However, it did make me extremely sad because most of the people I know are really trying to create a world where that wouldn’t be the case. I find it alarming in the same way that Eva described above. Not saying that you’re wrong though. I do want you to know though that just about every person I know would find the behavior of Frago and Rieger to be completely disgusting, deeply shameful, and indisputably racist.
I’m desperately hoping your number is too high but trust that you (and many of your commentators) have a much, much better read on this than I do as a middle-aged woman living in a liberal enclave of New England. I do feel that race relations are generally better than they were 40-50 years ago when I was a teenager growing up in the Midwest. I can see it in the way many of attitudes of people I knew back then, and still know, have changed. We’ve still got a discouragingly long way to go. But I have to think that we can continue to make progress, even if it’s slow. Maybe in ten years, you’ll be down to thinking only 25% of whites are racist! Let’s just keep moving in the right direction.
As a white dude, I must admit to having a "reverse racism/woe-is-me" moment about a decade ago when applying for college teaching positions in some of the more PC enclaves of Northern California. A friend of mine who was on one of the hiring committees confided in me that some folks on said committee brought up race in some rather euphemistic ways. His purpose was just to prepare me for a perhaps longer-than-I-expected process of securing a full-time job, but I took it and ran the aforementioned reverse. Much to my (retrospective) horror, I found myself whining a river to a dear friend of mine, last name Sifuentes, who much to his credit, did not disown me as a friend or even call bullshit. Instead, he merely said "You have to think like a minority now. You have to be so good that people will feel foolish for not giving you the job." And within a month I had the kind of job I was looking for.
Damn he was (and still is) a wise man, and as grateful as I am to have someone like him as a friend, I wish more people who moan about affirmative action also had a friend like that. For not getting into your first choice of law school is not the same as never getting the chance to go to school in the first place.
Fascinating. Some of the commenters are going to have to explain to me the difference between "not liking black people much" and "being racist", 'cause I'm not seeing the distinction.
I think the reason people are getting incensed over this is two fold: firstly, as white Americans, we want to believe we, the country, the society, have come farther than that. 35-40% is a fairly shocking figure to someone who of socially liberal inclination basking in the glow of having elected the first black president (some thing which was frequently said not to be possible in our life time). Secondly, I think people are taking it personally... group identification at work, perhaps? They seem to be hearing not "a significant minority are racist" but rather "you are a little bit racist". Comments to the effect of "we're all a little racist" are not helping this... This is typical of white (over)sensitivity to accusations (and perceived accusations) of racism. This may seem remarkably silly (nay, insulting) to those of you who have experienced real hatred and bigotry, or suffered the effects of discrimination, but it is a genuine, natural response: no one wants to be seen as (or feel like) the bad guy.
There is no doubt that whites, by in large, simply do not see many of the (very real) instances of racism that go on around them. Part of this is from lack of experience, part of it is not wanting to see (not so much willfully ignoring, as an over extension of the benefit of the doubt in most cases I would assume). But, if lack of exposure to racism leads to under-estimation, then surely suffering from it must lead to over-estimation... that would seem to be a logical necessity. Just as blacks see whites as perpetually blind to racism, whites see blacks as constantly imagining racism where there is none. In reality, these phenomenon are not mutually exclusive, and both ring true to a degree (I suspect, however, that underestimation probably occurs with greater frequency than it's converse...).
I think the notion raised in some of the comments, that racism is part of the human condition, is an interesting one. Is the human tendency to categorize ourselves based on similarities and differences so innate to our biology that it is inescapable? If people are going to categorize themselves as nerds, jocks, men, women, punks, rich, poor, etc, we can hardly be expected to ignore something as obvious as skin color. And as some have pointed out on this thread, there's a difference between having a thought and acting on it.
Given this, I have to take issue with the notion in the original post that the Obama Presidency hasn't led us into a post-racial America, because I don't think the elimination of people categorizing each other based on skin color is a realistic tipping point. I do think that a black man becoming POTUS is a realistic tipping point, in that it can be argued that while race may continue to present obstacles to achievement, it no longer presents an impenetrable barrier like it once did.
Now this doesn't mean that I think we should ignore racial issues or stop trying to rectify inequalities. There's always room for improvement. But at some point the race issue needs to be demoted from THE ISSUE, which this country was born with when slavery was written into the Constitution, to just another issue that we need to deal with day by day in our imperfect society. I think we've reached that point.
We are not all racists, but as Stephen Jay Gould noted, the human mind is a pattern seeking machine. We all make generalizations about, say, plumbers, Rotarians, and even Norwegians.
Do a lot of white people disdain black people?
Yes.
Are a lot of white people scared of black people?
Yes.
Do a lot of white people take all of their fears, frustrations and resentments and crumple them up into a ball of hatred deep within their souls?
Yes.
Does such animosity often manifest itself as hatred for Others?
You bet your ass it does.
Are there white people who feel no animosity towards African Americans, yet still feel mentally and morally superior?
You Betcha.
It is extremely difficult to define racism, and even harder to say how many of us it afflicts.
My friend James calls me a faggot all the time so I got sick of it and started calling him a nigger. This, of course, happened when we were both really wasted. I went straight up in his face and said NIGGER!! with a southern redneck accent. And he goes up to me and says FUCKIN QUEER ASS FAGGOT!! Its a joke with us now and when we do it in front of people and they think its funny as hell.
I don't know what the percentage is, but there are definitely middle class white people out there who don't like black people because this white girl hears them talking about it. The comments invariably run to the same theme, which is that Obama is going "Give them more [than us]". This is the concern at the core of every comment I've heard since Obama first started to look like he had a serious shot at this thing.
I remember during the primaries, when it clear that HRC was out of it, a friend, a sixty-ish white woman called me and said, "Do you think they're going to demand special treatment now?" and I said, "Who? Harvard Law School Graduates? People from Chicago? Community organizers?" She shut up after that, but I am sure her fear has not evaporated.
I always thought this particular strand of racism arose out of the growing income inequality, but that doesn't make it anything other than racism.
That reminds me of something. During the primaries, I was singing Obama's praises to a retired corporate attorney at a dinner with a bunch of other people. She was white and wealthy, upper crust New York. I expressed admiration for Obama's choice to forego a lucrative corporate law career to pursue underpaid, gritty, voting rights activism and politics. The lawyer rolled her eyes, smirked and said, "Well, that's because he was lazy you see, and didn't want to log the allnighters and unglamorous grind of corporate law. He's a showboat, not a workhorse." I tensed and was like "uhm.. what did you say?" She laughed and said, "Dont' be so sensitive, I'm giving you a hard time because you clearly admire this man."
Confusing moment for me. Was she applying racial stereotypes to Obama's life? Was I being overly sensitive for something she could have said about Bill Clinton (but did not)? I can guarantee though that none of us at that table thought she was "racist." Although we started to doubt.
Aubrey,
Your white lawyer friend is a racist and needs to check into a racism rehab. I suggest an intervention.
I don't see it. Is there some racial subtext to the terms "showboat" and "workhorse" that I don't understand? Or are you being sarcastic?
I would say the white lawyer is probably a racist, but might simply be malicious.
The racist possibility isn't encoded in particular words (though the implication of laziness would count) so much as assuming bad motivations for what would usually be considered generosity on Obama's part.
The malice would be the claimed motivation to swat down Obama merely because you're enthusiastic about him, and then saying ("Don't be sensitive") that you shouldn't care about how she's treating you.
Bruno on Obama:
http://digg.com/dialogg/bruno_1?t=26378604#c26378604
wow--self-defensive white persons are feeling very self-defensive!
alternate title: how high was my dudgeon.
i think you struck a nerve, t--keep it up!
Kid bitzer -
I think you can find your explanation here:
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offended/
God I gotta stop reading blogs I'm starting to get fat from sitting on my ass reading this shit.
I was already fat, so.
BTW, you forgot the "But" in the title of this post.
The refrain is, "Now I'm Not Racist, but.."
This thread is exactly why--besides the music and sports topics--I am so hooked. There exists a duality, a dissonance in race perceptions because everyone's personal experiences and knowledge are so varied. We were all raised so differently and inherited so many fears and old wives' tales on the subject, with some folks are just clinging to fear because it's all they recognize.
My Pops was a man more impressed with Eleanor than Franklin Roosevelt,(served in the special forces, said FDR ignored the concentration camps), who as a kid used to leave Philly (when my Grandma was asleep) to sneak into Harlem clubs to hear Duke Ellington and Cab Calloway, and as a man received death threats for hiring a black grocery store manager on the south side of Chicago at a time when that wasn't done. That this man with a 6th grade education was smarter than anyone else I remember from childhood does not allow me to be too forgiving of those who should have known better. That I believe segregation robbed all of society is just a feather in the wind compared with the suffering it caused decade after decade of black children brought up within that aura.
Last night CNN is showing Cronkite footage and there was film on forced bussing, as black children are walking past and some "schivoza" shirt-sleeved, Brilcreamed cracker yells, "Go home N-----!" This was the 70s!
My college-age sons have been brought up in diversity, are minorities in their neighborhood, and feel extremely uncomfortable in any environment that is predominantly white. I want them to feel comfortable everywhere, to not worry about what others think because one can never control that, but they maintain that when they are in a white-majority group they sense people who live, work or even pray in a white neighborhood ,(like the beach cities of LA),out of either fear or hatred of other races. They also state that because we are not as high on the economic strata as this group, they feel automatically marginalized by the uber-haves, yet have "no desire to acquire." One studies psychology, one history, both into sports,art, and R&B. There is another side of my family that finds us abhorrent, refused to attend my son's high school graduation several years back. Ah, but they have kids and the kids are asking questions via email, and this is how it starts...Racism exists, it is real, and it tears at the fabric of all families, yet it would be arrogant of any white to assume they have any real idea of what it has done to Black America. Imagine starting a race you never signed up for in chains and you are expected to finish at the same time as the people who are unshackled and volunteered for it. 200 years later, all those generations starting behind, how can those at the finish line decry those lagging behind?
Finally, I recommend an interesting article by John Edgar Wideman that maintains "race is a myth, and when we stop talking about it, stop believing in it it will go away." (Harper's magazine,August 09 issue), actually uses Louis Till's (father of Emmett)death by hanging--he was accused of rape and murder when stationed in the US Army in Italy, following AWOL--as the reason Emmett metthe same fate, and that Louis Till was himself a victim of the same fate. He states that it is the fatherlessness of both that created their situations, that we are ignoring this country's treatment of children in lieu of racial issues.
Dude doesn't get it. LA was segregated by design. nobody crossed that Alameda corridor! The schools in urban areas were not given what schools in suburban areas were. Failing our children and chipping away at what we KNOW is racism are not one and the same. They are both mutually exclusive yet overlap into a broader context. Wideman sounds apologist under the guise of psuedo-intellect. Racism hides under expensive carpets as well as the shag rugs.
Title of article was "Fatheralong," by John Edgar Wideman, an editor at Harpers.
Having read another "Obama hates America/Obama is apologizing for America" rant in our local rag amongst the screeds, er..."letters" to the editor, I got to thinking about this thread again. I suspect that a lot of these people are assuming that this stance is the truth (and not the wingnut propganda that it is) due to some murky sense of white guilt, as they must have some inkling that quite frankly, black people have a legitimate beef with what has transpired, and are lashing out in a defensive posture out of fear. Then again, there is the person I was talking to about Rev. Wright when said issue was at the forefront of the news cycle, and I mentioned how he had to deal with a lot of blatant discrimination in spite of serving his country, to which she said, "Get over it already." So I suppose whether such vitriol is rooted in supressed guilt or blatant disregard for the experience of "others", Obama is clearly just a depository for these sensibilities: a black man whose actual words and actions they are tuning out because all they see is his face, and those faces tend to be angry in their eyes. I'm coming to the conclusion that I think the "Obama hates America" meme is the most racist of all the propganda being spewed, or at least the most pernicious, since it is the kind of slogan that people can throw around in public and polite company without most people noticing what lies beneath it.
Um, look, I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the 35-40% thing was meant to be a joke. And not a joke about how many white people may or may not be racist, but a joke about the futility, the senselessness, of trying to quantify this sort of thing at all. If I'm right -- TNC? -- then this thread seems to have wandered well off course.
Yeah, essentially. I'm shocked it offended, so much. It was not a serious estimate. I don't know how we could know...
So what if we digressed? That's what makes it a good topic to post and it has amorphous borders, as I alluded to above.
OK - I've been reading this blog for about a year but never posted. This post, though, has caused a lot of things to brew in my head the past few days. This might be a bit off-topic and some might find it offensive, but please take it in the spirit of free exchange and honest disclosure that is, I think, what makes this blog so gripping.
I'm 38, male, white, gay, Jewish. I grew up in the Chicago suburbs and went to public school. The only blacks I ever had any contact with were a handful of families who lived in my town and were solidly upper-middle-class, with parents who were architects, professionals, etc. I remember going to a black girl's birthday party when we were like 5 or 6; her brother ended up pledging a Jewish frat at U of I, since that was where all his friends from high school joined. I remember getting rides to bar mitzvahs in high school with another black kid from his dad. I'm not exaggerating when I say that, until I went to college, I had no idea that there were really any differences between white and black people. I thought The Jeffersons was representative of all black people, and since the half dozen blacks I actually knew were pretty much just like that, I simply couldn't understand how anyone could be racist at all.
I went off to college in a small, liberal arts school in New England, where for the first time I met what I'll call a handful of professionally pissed-off blacks. These were the kids who would talk in class about all white people and society at large were inherently racist. I remember in my freshman poli sci class one guy actually said in discussion that it would be morally acceptable to set a bomb off in the dining hall as a protest against American racism. Considering that this guy's dad was a minister, the kid grew up in a tony part of metro Hartford and went to an expensive private school, my response was: WTF? This was about the time I started hanging out by myself in Chicago and NYC and becoming more aware of urban crime, and I started to realize that in some contexts, black = dangerous. I started to understand that black life in America wasn't all upper-middle-class, Upper East Side, Jeffersons and Cosbys.
After college I moved into an apartment in Chicago and started to learn that there were certain neighborhoods you couldn't go if you were white. I started to hear about cousins and friends who were held up at gunpoint by black people. I never really felt unsafe, but I learned to be very aware of my surroundings. I learned that if I saw poor-looking blacks hanging out in my neighborhood, particularly late at night, to stick to busy, well-lit streets, walk straight down the middle of the road as opposed to on a sidewalk hidden by trees, or even to pop into a Walgreens or something until they passed by.
In 2001 I moved to NYC, which had what felt like almost no street crime at that point. I got some black attitude from people (being called "white boy" by a dude on the street, etc.), but I never really felt at risk of violence, so I just sort of ignored it. I lived in Inwood, which was a majority Dominican neighborhood, and loved it. My next-door neighbors were a retired black couple who were just lovely - we got along great, we'd exchange cookies and stuff if we baked, etc. If you'd asked me then, I'd have said my overall impression of black people was neutral to positive.
After NY I moved to DC. In this city, I'm called "faggot" or "honky" on the street or in the Metro by black people on a regular basis. I once had a group of black kids, maybe 12-13 years old, throw stuff at me on the Metro in rush hour because I was white. This doesn't just happen in black neighborhoods, or in gentrifying places like Columbia Heights - it happens in Dupont, in Georgetown, everywhere. Just this afternoon after working out in Columbia Heights, I saw a group of black kids, no older than 10, walking down the sidewalk next to a group of adults (some white, some not) - one of the kids took his sweaty towel and smacked the head of a white woman, just for the hell of it. There are groups of black religious weirdos standing outside the Metro in CH and in Silver Spring telling all the blacks about how the whites and Jews are devils, etc. In the three years I've been here, I know one guy who got held up at gunpoint by a black guy next to the Foggy Bottom Metro stop, one girl who had her nose bloodied when a group of black girls just swarmed her and punched her in the face randomly in the middle of the afternoon on Capitol Hill, etc. And of course I read the papers and hear about the shootings, the muggings, the black kids who throw bricks at white people from the housing projects in Shaw, etc. Add to that the slight indignities - hearing blacks screaming "motherfuckin" 80 times on the Metro while I'm trying to go home from work, or having people come up to me and ask for money or some of my gum (often calling me "faggot" when I say no.) It's wearying.
At this point, I guess you could call me one of those whites who doesn't like black people. Objectively, I know that most black people in DC or elsewhere are just trying to live their lives. But I would estimate there's a significant minority (10%? 20%? What do you say, TNC?) who either hate me or just want to fuck with me because they're bored. As a result, I've become hardened. I tense up when I see black people, particularly if they're young, male, and especially if they're in groups, unless I can tell they're Ethiopian or speaking French or something, in which case I relax. At this point, if I had the money, I'd move to Bethesda - not because I like the suburbs (hate them and find them stultifying) or want to live exclusively around white people (my best neighborhood ever was Inwood in NYC, with the Dominicans) but because I just hate feeling on my guard all the time. I want to relax and not feel like any black person I see may at best be loud and obnoxious or at worst dangerous.
Does this make me racist and a horrible person? Maybe. I voted for Obama and donated a few thousand bucks (which I didn't really have) to him. When I lived in Chicago, I opened an account with South Shore Bank, which specialized in lending to underserved minority communities, because I thought their mission was worthy. I loved living next to my black neighbors, and yes, I have at times had black friends in my life (I hate using that language for obvious reasons, but again - take this rambling in the spirit of open, heartfelt exchange.)
I guess what I'm trying to get at through this stream of consciousness is that white people's view of and feelings toward black people are really complex, probably vary according to time and context, and are often contradictory. Frankly, I think much of it has to do with violence or the perception of it. When I lived in NY, I didn't really worry that blacks were going to attack me in the subway or on the street, so I had no problems roaming anywhere -- Manhattan, Brooklyn, even the Bronx. I enjoyed going to Harlem to eat soul food at Miss Mamie's on 110th. Interestingly enough, at that time in my life I had a gay black friend who grew up in inner-city Cleveland, went to college at a liberal arts school in New England, had a thing for blond Eastern European guys, etc. He looked like a young Robert Guillaume/Benson and wore things like German national team soccer gear, etc. He told me he felt really nervous taking the A train through Harlem to visit me in Inwood, because the thugs would fuck with him. When I said I never felt in danger, he said that was because I'm white. He said something like, "You're white so they just ignore you because all white people are weird. They'll fuck with me because I don't fit."
In DC right now, I just can't deal with it anymore. I don't know - maybe people will just say I shouldn't care if I get called a faggot on the street. But do black people get called niggers by whites regularly on the street in Harlem, or in Midtown? (Seriously, do they? I've never seen it, but I recognize my perceptions may not be reliable here.) But it's exhausting. And I feel vulnerable. I don't like feeling vulnerable. All I want to do is live my life and get to and from work without feeling like I'm going to be attacked or that everyone hates me. I guess living here has given me some insight into what Jim Crow was like, and that's valuable, I think. But at this point all I want to do is just chill and not be afraid someone's going to throw a punch at my head out of nowhere.
Anyway, I can't believe I wrote this much. If anyone actually read all the way through, you're a better person than I. Thanks.
It's funny, because his early experience with people of color is very similar to mine-- right down to the damn Jeffersons. Except that when I got to college and started talking to people, I shut up and listened. And I learned some stuff. And I'm still learning. I guess that's the choice-- you can shut your ears and decide people aren't worth liking, or you can open up and learn something.
I give up. Actually, I gave up when you brought up The Jeffersons.
See, this is a pretty weak response in my book. The guy is just trying to tell his truth. If you don't like it, engage with it, don't just dismiss it.
I think the fact that you've based your opinion of a group of 30-40 million people, based on your experience in a city where the total pop of black people is around 250,000, says a lot. I don't think D.C. made you prejudice.
I think that if you seriously believe that being gay in D.C., right now, is the equivalent of Jim Crow for black people, you really didn't need any help becoming prejudice. Moreover, you probably don't know what Jim Crow actually was, beyond separate water-fountains. And you, likely, don't much care.
We are what we choose to be. No one forces us into anything. That includes prejudice. We all have a choice.
"I guess that's the choice-- you can shut your ears and decide people aren't worth liking, or you can open up and learn something."
What is this supposed to mean, exactly? The guy is telling you he has built up a lot of resentment do to constant hostile treatment from black folks. That's not a pretty thing to say, but it's not like he just randomly woke up one day and decided not to like black people anymore. Which is what I'm getting from your response.
No, he's not.
He's saying he's built up a lot of resentment due to hostile treatment from one in ten Black folks, and that he's...shall we say, incompatible with some Black urban subcultures. He's saying he fears a possible violent reaction to his gay from the Black people he lives among.
I understand him, and you, to be saying this justifies fear and anger directed at ALL Black folk, and that it somehow offsets watermelon on the White House lawn, spook pictures and Michelle the gorilla jokes. Meanwhile, Canuckophile's problem is unjust but not unusual, nor specific to Black folk
Canuckophile's story is a tough one. My best friend, who is white and lives in Harlem has relayed similar experiences to me. Thankfully he sees it for what it is and shrugs it off with a "whatever" attitude and goes about his life. But as a black man if I found myself in the same situation over and over again I'm not sure I could be so casual about it and it actually is angering, embarrassing and depressing just to hear about it. I guess the point is that ill treatment is not turning him into a racist but does the fact that I might not be so casually effected make me one in waiting? I see a weird correlation between with some affirmative action and can black people be racist dialogues if that make sense.
I think each of us is in control of when we enter potentially problematic social situations.
Why?
We're all entitled to our personal reactions. Can't avoid them. We can, and need to, keep the public sphere, the agora, clean.
I don't get the connection.
Hey, don't put words in my mouth. I'm not justifying anything. I think his particular story is a rather sad, but probably accurate account of how a good deal of people come to hold racial resentments. I'm sure it works similarly for a number of non-white folks who have suffered discrimination, racism, etc. I certainly don't condone it; in fact, its kind of tragic for someone to go from knowing individuals of a race and accepting them as individuals, to seeing them as a hostile group. I've always thought that the former would preclude the latter, but I guess negative interaction can ware anyone down.
Lets take an extreme version of this: let's say you were born a Palestinian or an Israeli in the Gaza area. Lets say (by some sort of miracle) you started out unprejudiced, minimally effected by propaganda, culture whatever. You went to school with, worked with, had friends on the other side. But after X years of constant conflict (especially of the sort where your people end up killed and their homes destroyed), it is quite conceivable that you would lose your tolerance and start to see the other side as the enemy. There is no "justification" here; just tragedy. (This is what they used to like to call the "circle-of-violence" though that’s out of favor now due to the implication of equal responsibility.) What I am saying is that it’s pretty easy to see how, by experiencing racism from a minority of a group that one could to harbor racism against said group. Doesn't make it any less racist.
Basically, there are three levels of interaction you can have with people outside your "group", however you may define that.
1) No interaction - for example, growing up in an all-white neighborhood, school sytem, etc...
2) Cooperative interaction - working together, going to school together, etc... in a relatively noncompetitive environment
3) Competitive interaction - common when immigrant groups compete with locals for the same jobs, etc...
Now, number 1 is a crap shoot. You could, depending on what you were taught and what you took in, end up with a positive or negative bias, or no bias at all. The biggest problem here is ignorance, which is an enabler for racism and predjudice of all sorts. You could come out with some really weird, potentially offensive ideas. Or you could come out believing all men are created equal.
Number 2 is the best situation for racial harmony. You get to know people - friends, coworkers, etc... - as individuals, and when you do that it becomes harder to see people as a group. You also get a chance to cut down on ignorance of other groups/cultures, which is important.
Number 3 is, of course, the worst situation and produces the most virulent racism. You come to see "them" as the enemy, posing a threat to your livelihood, way of life, or even your safety (as the case with Canuckophile). You don't see others as individuals but as faceless members of a hostile team. Number 3 is what gets you poor whites railing against immigration and calling for English as the official language, factory workers smashing Japanese cars, and angry firefighters and college freshmen yelling about "reverse-discrimination". I think Canuckophile's later interactions fall best in this category.
Now, Ta-Nehisi had a very good post a while back on the subject of coming to understand, at least in part, the mindset of white people who instinctively fear for their safety around black people. This was in conjunction with understanding how being white in certain areas can potentially make you a mark for criminals. It was an attempt at understanding, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a commendation. The point being you can try to work out where people are coming from, and understand how they got where they are without justifying or supporting anything. Now, I know Ta-Nehisi is a lot more eloquent than me, but I'd appreciate it if you were to extend me the benefit of the doubt... at least on the first post, that is.
It takes a certain amount of balls to come on a site like this and post a personal account about how you came to be prejudiced. Now, I'm not saying you should give the man a medal, or even respect him for it, but I was a little dissapointed in the lack of engagement in the responses to the comment. TNC is ultimately right on all three accounts - the comparison to Jim Crow is grossly exaggerated, its not justifiable to hold an entire group responsible for the actions of a minority, and you have a choice in how you choose to view others - but I'm wondering if we can't take anything from the tale? Maybe not, but then I'm not seeing anyone make the attempt.
Here are the parts of the tale that interest me - hopefully Canuckophile's still around to respond:
A) I'm wondering why you've become "one of those white people who doesn't like black people" as opposed to "one of those white people who doesn't like black people in DC" or "one of those white people who doesn't like inner city black people." Given the unfortunate incidents seem to be heavily localized, and that you purportedly had some great experiences with black people in other locations, I'm finding it surprising that your experience with one group of black people would sour your experience with another. Obviously prejudice is prejudice regardless of the size of the group (surely there are some nice black people in DC), but what is causing you to connect blacks in one locale with another? Just the skin pigmentation?
B) The Jeffersons comment does come off rather dismissive, but Anna is on to something, I think. I don't want to read too much into this, but what it’s sounding a bit like you never really saw the black people you liked so much in Chicago as individuals, but rather as positive stereotypes. Along the same lines, saying something on the order of "I had a positive impression of black people” is a poor indicator. Positive bias isn't really much healthier than negative - especially since, as is evident in your story, its real easy to flip that bias around, because ultimately you are viewing people as a group rather than individuals. Thinking about it, this may have been what Persia was getting at (and, if so, Persia you have my apologies.) It also ties in with what TNC is saying: perhaps you weren't as prejudice free to begin with as you think you were.
This whole discussion reminds me of a conversation I had a few months ago at the hairdressers. I was reading a People magazine with a cover of Michelle Obama. After my haircut I said to the hairdresser something like - she's so much more beautiful than most of the women whose pictures end up in People magazine. Instead of replying directly to my statement, or ignoring it, she asked me, did I believe in the Rapture? Not knowing how this was relevant, I said no. (Since I'm Jewish, a fact that I think she knew, it was unlikely that I would believe in the Rapture!) She then went on to talk about how people have been telling her that they think Obama is the anti-Christ. I asked her who these people were. She said they were some of her customers. I said, did they belong to some particular church where the pastor was telling that that? She said she didn't know. I tried to say emphatically that no, Obama is not the anti-Christ. It was a very weird conversation. I've been getting my hair cut by her for several years now, and we've never had a conversation like this before. I think that Obama's election has definitely brought some white people to say racist things that they might not have said before (while still thinking them). Dave Neiwert over at Orcinus has been documenting how much of this stuff has been manifesting itself since Obama's election - not just racist comments like my hairdresser's, but increased organizing among racist groups, people like Glenn Beck or Pat Buchanan being even more outrageous on the air, etc. I think that his election has definitely freaked some white people out.