Responding to an audience question at a town hall at his presidential center in Atlanta, Carter said Tuesday that Wilson's outburst was also rooted in fears of a black president.
"I think it's based on racism," Carter said. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."
But Wilson's son disputed that.
"There is not a racist bone in my dad's body," said Alan Wilson, an Iraq veteran who is running for state attorney general in South Carolina. "He doesn't even laugh at distasteful jokes. I won't comment on former President Carter, because I don't know President Carter. But I know my dad, and it's just not in him."
"It's unfortunate people make that jump. People can disagree - and appropriately disagree - on issues of substance, but when they make the jump to race it's absolutely ludicrous. My brothers and I were raised by our parents to respect everyone regardless of background or race."
Carter, a Democrat, said Joe Wilson's outburst was a part of a disturbing trend directed at the president that has included demonstrators equating Obama to Nazi leaders.
I don't think Carter called Joe Wilson a racist. Tha said, one reason some of us try to avoid this discussion is because of its enormous potential for distraction. From a black perspective, I care about the disproportionate number of black people who are sick and dying, not the contents of Joe Wilson's heart.
Still, there's an element of this society that enjoys this debate. It really has nothing to do with health-care, or any other issue, as much as has to do with being confirmed. Some of us desperately want black people to acknowledgethat we are not our forefathers. Some of us desperately want white people to acknowledge that the spirit of those forefathers still haunts the land. We enjoy having this fight. We get something out of it--just not a health care bill.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Which is why, although Carter's words were undoubtedly heart felt and well-intentioned, I'm certain the White House and Obama in particular are not thrilled with yet another racial diversion from his policy goals. He doesn't appear to have the time or inclination to engage the nation on race yet again. That's what the beer at the picnic table was supposed to do. He's trying to deliver a substantial health care plan to the country.
It is evident however, that despite Obama's reluctance to confront this issue (and really we all understand why he is reluctant), it will continue to bubble up throughout the next 4 to 8 years. This race thing, and how we feel about it as a nation, is always at the foreground. Obama's legacy will be directly linked to his ability to navigate issues of race while trying to lead the United States, even when it refuses to be led.
When a former President says that a large portion of the anti-Obama sentiment that we have observed over the last few months is largely racially motivated, based on his "southern" bona fides, it merits attention, and will certainly receive it. I believe that the Obama administration is wise enough to know that these issues will come forward at various times during his presidency, but what they probably didn't bank on was President Carter, raising these issues to the fore at such an inopportune moment. They don't have another 2 weeks to have a national conversation on race right now.
Yeah, I'm pretty furious at Carter. I love the man and what he stands for, but this is the type of shit that explains why he was a one-term president. It's great to tell the truth. But it just doesn't work in this country.
It's great to tell the truth. But it just doesn't work in this country.
I can't decide if that statement is more funny than sad.
Again. If you're looking for ways to screw up a good thing, look to 98% of active Republicans or Democrats. People do this because they literally think this is the way you win the argument. Now, who knows whether Wilson is racist or not. And as you say, more or less, who cares? Where's the cost benefit analysis?
I'm realizing it was naive of me to think we could just call Wilson racist, quietlty and calmly, and then simply move on to more important matters. Because I'm very tired of this discussion, and this wasn't the way I thought or assumed it would go.
After my Gates hangover, this seems like small potatoes!
You're right about that, Tek. That really struck me during the conversation about Gates and Crowley, too, how virulent the response was to someone even hinting that what Crowley did might have a racial element.
It made me realize something: there are things about racism in America that only white people really know, because there are lots of ways race and racism affect our relationships with one another that pertain whether we ever come in contact with other racial groups or not.
I think the emotion and turmoil that surrounds calling someone a "racist" is one of those things. The fact is that most white people's personal experiences with people being called a racist (or not) comes via interactions with other white people. How did your Mom and Dad react when your Uncle told that joke after Thanksgiving dinner? What about the rest of the family? What did your Mom and Dad say about it in the car on the way home? Do you repeat it to your friends the next day? How do they react?
For many white families since the Civil Rights era, the answer is that the joke was treated with a few strained laughs from the men and mostly dirty looks from the women (especially if told within earshot of the kids), once you got in the car Mom told you that that kind of talk was absolutely unacceptable, and when you told your friends the joke the next day at school they all said your Uncle was a bad guy who was probably going to hell for being prejudiced.
So when one white person says that another white person is a "racist", it's often meant and received in a very personally damning way. It's much worse than being called a "liar", or "unfaithful", or "stupid" or most other epithets. By using "racist", the speaker usually intends it as signifying a bone-deep, permanent moral failure, and the target takes it as such. I'm talking about connotations here, not denotations; the best words I can come up with to describe the connotations is "rotten" or "diseased" on the inside. Moreover, it defines you in a way that other personal moral failings don't.
But when white people who've thought deeply about ideas of institutional racism use "racist", or when black or hispanic or asian people use "racist", I don't think they usually mean it to carry those connotations. Even when referring to individuals. Once you understand that those racial biases are part of all of us, that you can't avoid it, but that it's just one part of who you are and that you can overcome it (or, at least, beat it back) in most of the ways that truly matter, then the term ceases to have those connotations of permanent rot, at least for each of us as individuals.
Anyway, this disconnect in the connotations of the word "racist" is, I suspect, why you thought "we could just call Wilson racist, quietly and calmly, and then simply move on to more important matters". And why we're all finding out that we can't.
Some good points here. I read this past week (maybe here, maybe somewhere else) someone writing that they grew up in a midwestern small town, where "nigger" was used so widely that you would have thought that is what black folks were supposed to be called. So it was with many of my family (from southern Indiana) and their friends, who were my friends as well. Everytime I heard something like that (pretty much every day), the internal struggle began as to how to respond (or not), and what to say (if anything). I am pretty sure that no matter how upset I felt, I didn't say to anyone: "you are a racist." And it was for pretty much the reasons Troy mentions. I honestly don't know if I ever said: "that's racist," though I suspect I did. I certainly let people know I didn't want to hear that stuff, but that just encourages them. Here's an example (from someone I didn't like, my widowed mother's one-time boyfriend "Cece," a used car salesman):
ME: "I drove up to Chicago and went to a White Sox game."
HE: "Did you pay the nigger?"
ME: "Did I WHAT?"
HE: "Pay the nigger, you know, one of the niggers that say they'll watch your car for $10. If you don't pay, you might not have any wheels when you get back..."
ME: "No, Cece, no one asked me and I didn't pay anybody, and nothing happened to the car."
HE: "Yeah, well, can't be too careful around those people..."
ME: "THOSE PEOPLE...oh, hell, do we have any scotch?"
Anyway, as often as I confronted Cece on stuff, I'm pretty sure I never called him a racist. And I don't think it would have been helpful to do so.
Yep, that's exactly the kind of interaction I'm talking about, blackirish. Sounds very familiar.
I think the role of women in families like yours and mine was pretty interesting also. This topic came up in a late-night conversation with a group of friends a couple years ago (5 white guys, mid-30s), and we discovered we all had had the same experience: a moment of honest-to-God shock, one day in our early 20s, when we discovered our mothers harbored some deeply racist idea. Because every single one of them had NEVER allowed any of that kind of talk around their kids, and had always denounced it once they got you alone. Like they knew the world was changing and wouldn't let their kids grow up with the same prejudices they themselves had.
Troy, very interesting. My mother was quite tolerant, but in her last years I did see vestiges of prejudice. I was driving back from a funeral "down home" and I took some back roads back thru the area she grew up. I drove into a town called Lancaster, which is the site of Eleutheria College, one of the first schools to accept African-Americans, including, I learned, one of the Jefferson boys. This was before the Civil War. Anyway, it is standing, and something of a museum, so I stopped. She didn't really want me to. Anyway, the curator gave me a big tour. When we left, I tried to talk to Mom about the place, and what people thought of it when she was growing up. She said, "it just wasn't talked about." After reading some of the literature I picked up, I realized she was referring to intermarriage of white and black students and especially teachers. That is something that had never seemed to bother her in day-to-day life, but the residual sort of disgust was palpable. But I never saw it in her, which is to her great credit.
I don't know if it is so much enjoying the debate, and I appreciate your appeal to efficacy, but I think it is important people understand how racism of the past affects the present. It's important because maybe if people understood it we wouldn't have to try to trick them into equality or maybe it would be a reduction of ignorance in general. I find it weird that trying to assert reality is a distraction and you don't connect how people can have a skewed view of reality as being causal in why there is a disproportionate number of black people sick and or dying and why health care like much of domestic policy has an added significance to communities of color. One's view of reality necessarily shapes their policy prescriptions. Maybe you should care a little more about what is in Joe Wilson's heart instead of dismissing it as distraction.
The problem, in addition to the distraction TNC's points to, is the fact that you don't know any better than anybody else what's in Joe Wilson's heart. I mean, we all know there is racism (overt, covert, and sublimated) all across the country, and that there's certainly racism in South Carolina. The problem comes when we draw a line between this that we know without question, and that which we decide would be a convenient example. The fact is that we don't know whether he's a racist or not. Maybe if we actually knew that, then it would be less of a distraction.
Instead, it just makes sense that he's a racist. He comes from SC. He likes the Confederate Battle Flag. He knew and liked Strom Thurmond. He is against illegal immigrants being in the country. I mean, connect the dots man! But that doesn't work. What it does is take a guy who had already discredited himself, and turns him into a victim.
No, you're right. Maybe Wilson had gas and when he screamed you lie he was trying to cover up something. If he is a racist it would be latent and using proxies to determine it can't grant you certainty so while he seems to champion things racists champion as part of their racism we can never really know. But what we do know is that racism/racial resentment affects policy attitudes and past racism affects people's current social environment so discerning what is in some one's heart isn't irrelevant it isn't a distraction even if it is hard to get at. And there is a link between what is in people's hearts and how they vote. Anyone concerned with inequality needs to understand this. It can't just be focus on the policy and to hell with how people feel. That's a very misguided view, in my opinion.
I don't really think we need to say to hell with how people feel. We just need to be conscious of the pitfalls of an issue (whether it's racism or anything else) as we're navigating it. Maybe it's especially difficult to deal with racism because so many people (on both sides, really) want to live in a world we don't presently live in, and want everybody else to see what we see.
"I find it weird that trying to assert reality is a distraction"
Yes, thank you!
Honestly I don't find it weird that asserting reality is a distraction. Kinda like that one scene in 1776: "Nowhere do you mention fishing rights!" Well, yeah, there actually were problems with fishing rights. But are two words spoken by Joe Wilson really more important than getting the whole health care package passed? If not, it's a distraction.
I continually appreciate your nuanced perspective on this issue. It seems that most people I meet have their mind firmly set on this, and think either that the opposition to Obama has nothing to do with race, or that it has everything to do with race. Now, many of the things that Obama's opponents have said very clearly have at least some level of a racial tinge, from the birthers to Glenn Beck's absurd accusation that Obama has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." But I'm not comfortable with the habit I see on the left of reading racial motives into virtually any bad behavior that Obama receives from the right. The problem isn't so much that it's wrong as that it's simplistic, because it overlooks the possibility that Obama might get attacked for the same reason that his white predecessors, such as Bill Clinton, got attacked: simply because the right is full of angry, hateful individuals who can't stand when Democrats are in power. I'm willing to concede the possibility that Joe Wilson's outburst had a racial motivation. But that's all it is: a possibility. I see nothing to be gained by jumping to conclusions. All it does is foster the stereotype promoted by the right that liberals are constantly playing the race card.
To paraphrase Shep Proudfoot in "Fargo"
"Don't know Joe Wilson, don't vouch for Joe Wilson"
I haven't heard anybody explicitly call him a racist. Is there racism behind his outburst? Your guess is as good as mine is. I don't have any insight into the man other than what's been brought up in the last week, and to be honest I don't really care what one congressman in South Carolina harbors in his heart, that's his cross to bear.
Carter's comments were spot on though. There's no way you can take a referendum on something relatively benign like "public healthcare" which is something many (most even?) non-third world countries have installed with varying degrees of success, and have such a hateful and vicious reaction without other things being more of a driving force behind it. It's one thing to disagree with your politicans, but to dehumanize them and compare them to Hitler, man I don't see anything BUT racism as the prevailing factor here.
They've been trying to de-Americanize Obama since the campaign, not just trying to de-legitimize him as a poor politician, but as a human being altogether. Trying to make him one of "them" instead of one of "us" and I don't mean "them" as Democrat and "us" as Republican.
They really hate him, not just his politics, but everything about him, especially the color of his skin. The ether burns slow in them, they can't accept that a man who looks like him can ascend to the most powerful position in the world.
In no way am I implying that disagreeing with the policies of the administration in any way makes you racist either. It's not the disagreement that disturbs me, it's the vitriol and the anger and bloodlust in which the disagreement is framed.
I understand there's concerns about health reform and those concerns should be voiced, nobody is suggesting that the answers of legitimate questions should go unasked and unanswered, but when people are openly walking around with firearms while carrying placards that refer to the president of the United States "Hitler", "The Anti-Christ", "Not American" and threats to "Water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" there's more than just worry about "healthcare reform" at play.
"I haven't heard anybody explicitly call him a racist."
What do you think Maureen Dowd was doing in her column the other day?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html
People are raising money by calling him a racist
http://www.actblue.com/page/wilsonisracist
She strongly implied it, but didn't come right out and say "Joe Wilson is a racist".
Myself, I refuse to speculate on what was behind his decision to shout down the president during a speech. At this point it's fairly inconsequential. He's a hero to many on the right, a villain to many on the left but unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
I don't and never have cared about Wilson's outburst, I actually found it mildly amusing. I just chalked it up to the theory that many people on the right can't help but show their ass.
I guess this would be me. Why? Well, as long as some people continue to insist that racism is over and the real racism now is against white men, it does a couple of things that I think are pretty serious:
1. It distorts reality, which just bothers the hell out of me. Seems to be a growing trend.
2. It does not force us to look at how when we handle certain issues as a society/government, long-standing prejudices and attitudes about race might be affecting actual policy. Katrina comes to mind. Affirmative Action comes to mind. The criminal justice system comes to mind.
3. Admittedly, part of my reaction is purely emotional. I grew up surrounded by racists. We were in a mostly working class community that everyone called "racist." And they were right. When I see racism happening in the Congress, the legal/police system, or other parts of the government, I want to see the truth called out just like it was when it was propagated by some schmo in my neighborhood.
The problem is, picking this kind of fight in this particular kind of way, IMO, makes such an acknowledgment even less likely, even from the most well-meaning yet ignorant white people. I agree 100% that longstanding prejudices influence a great deal of our policy in the US. And I do think white people need to wake up and do a better job coming to terms with that. But the problem with this particular line of attack (I don't know that you could really call it persuasion, could you?) goes back to a previous TNC column on race, to the definition most white people have of "racism" in their heads.
To be a "racist" in this society is to be someone who drops the n-bomb in polite company, to be someone who would shoot a black man without a thought, who would sick his or her dogs on black children for being on the wrong side of the street. And most white people - even most republicans - aren't THAT. So when you stick them with that label, especially when it comes to something relatively innocuous like Wilson's outburst (how many of these people would have cheered to see this happen to Clinton or Pelosi?) they get defensive, and you weaken the effect of the charge if it must be used down the road.
The problem is, there seem to be two kinds of people on the right going into hysterics here: people who are racist and know full well that they are, and people who don't genuinely believe that they are racist, but whose beliefs have been shaped by a society full of racism, whose definition of "other" might be subconsciously about skin color but in the forefront of their mind is played off as culture or class or upbringing. When you call the former a racist, he thinks little of it, he calls you a racist back - basically, there's no sane discussion to be had. When you call the latter a racist, they get offended and say you're playing the race card, because they really don't see the truth in what you're saying. It might be worth taking the time to explain the influence of race to the latter, but that'll never happen - it'll never be accepted - once the charge of racism is lowered. At that point, you've declared war.
I think Carter's comments could be helpful to white Democrats who tend to be more wishy-washy on race than any other liberal issue.
Carter should what can happened when white privilege can be leveraged for good.
Your average Blue Dog supporter will believe Carter more than say John Lewis.
I think this "distraction" idea is being taken just a smidge too far. Not everything everyone says has to be an effort to get health reform.
We can walk and chew gum on many issues, just not death panels.
I disagree. Look at Gates-gate. The media and a co-opted nation spent 2 weeks talking about a Black Harvard professor's experience being arrested in his own home and Obama's response to it. This is in spite of the fact that immediately prior to his response to one -question, Obama had just spent an entire hour talking about health care. I'm not convinced our country has the ability to walk and chew gum simulatanteously. We are too easily distracted by Joe wilson, Serena Williams and Kanye fricking West. I wish I shared your optimism. I just can't see my way past the crazy yet.
Walking and chewing gum doesn't mean you aren't..chewing gum.
Yes we get a bit distracted but no it doesn't stop the policy from moving forward.
Seriously, I'm not sure it's an either/or question. I'm with you that the racist debate becomes a distraction, and that arguments about motives are impossible to resolve. I don't want to ride race-summit merry-go-round for another month, either.
On the other hand, how high should we let the bar of "not officially racist" behavior rise? How much behavior should we accept as normal? There's a danger in being consumed by the culture wars but there's a real, albeit smaller, danger of letting over-the-top behavior go unchallenged for so long that it changes the nation's sense of the acceptable.
The ends of this debate are dug in deep, and minds will not be changed there. But there is still the vague persuadable middle, and it's their sense of what the average is, of what the common and reasonable is, that worries me.
I think a sane elder-statesman type like Carter saying, "I'm from the South, and racism is still a problem, and this looks like racism to me," might actually get some middle-of-the-road types to think about what's going on. No, the left should never make the debate primarily about race, but neither should it abandon the idea that worrying about racism is a reasonable position.
Speaking of "sane elder-statesman" former Pres. George H.W. Bush has invited Pres. Obama to attend a community service/Points of Light foundation celebration at his presidential library in Texas. Pres. Obama has accepted and will attend the event in October. Can't wait to see the Texas tea-baggers and successionists rally their forces in protest.
Knowing both Pres. and Mrs. Barbara Bush, I believe (tho' they won't say so) that this is their smack-down to the "beast" that is overtaking their party. It was Mrs. Bush who said during the '92 GOP convention "the hardest job in politics is motivating a moderate."
And yes, I know "Willie Horton/these people never had it so good." But before anyone lets loose, remember it was Bill Clinton who left the campaign trail to pull the execution switch in Arkansas on a mentally challenged Black man. I may be biased, oh hell I am biased because I worked for them and know them personally, but George and Barbara Bush are good people and tho' they are doing it on their own terms, I welcome them to the fight.
Whether or not Joe Wilson is personally a racist is actually irrelevant and Carter should have been more specific in drawing attention to the racial element in the Republican rage against Obama. It's not that Wilson, Limbaugh or Beck or any of the other GOP rabblerousers are personally racist. I don't know if they are or not, but I would suspect probably not. It's that they have no compunction against using racism for political gain.
What they are, in the end, is ridiculously, unconscionably, boundlessly cynical.
I don't see the analogy between Wilson and Limbaugh/Beck. Limbaugh and Beck have used actual, explicit race-baiting in their rhetoric; Wilson has not. Sure, we can go on to ask the question "Are Limbaugh and Beck personally racist or just cynics?" but from the start they're in a different category than Wilson.
You can't have a racial element without "personal" racism. What you consider a "personal" component affects that actors interaction with/on behalf of systems/institutions. It is not a switch that can be turned off with its effects isolated.
The 3 you have mentioned are racists who have no compunction against using racism for political gain and are ridiculously, unconscionably, boundlessly cynical. In addition to their racism, their cynicism about this country's ideals (i.e., our shared culture) disgusts me. They'd rather see it destroyed than evolve.
I wholeheartedly agree that Carter should utilize his white privilege to explain the racial element behind the rage (i.e., the perception that health care/insurance reform is a handout to teh colored folk). As a Georgian Baptist who served in the Navy he could speak authoritatively and the right wing would have to do back flips to discredit his experience.
I think it's a discussion that needs to be had (as someone said, we can/should be able to walk and chew gum), but whites need to step up and bear the brunt for once.
Cynical - See: Nixon's Southern Strategy , see: Ronald Reagan's Welfare 'Queens", see: George Bush's Willie Horton, see yadda, yadda
The issue is that Republican political strategy has RELIED on appeals to racism and racial animosity for a generation. The negative beliefs and attitudes towards minorities held by a significant (but dwindling) percentage of the electorate, persist due in no small part to 40 years of Republican campaigns to CREATE that belief in order to secure electoral majorities. The current infowar sorties being conducted by FoxNews, Beck, Limbaugh and the rest are explicit attempts to reinvigorate the brand with new and improved products. Cynical is actually too mild a term ...
The cynicism on display with the selection of Palin as a running mate for McCain is indicative of their complete disdain for the future of the country. The opposition to reform of our healthcare system is ONLY a tactic employed to disrupt what the electorate clearly indicated they wanted and to prevent the consolidation of power by the new political rootstock.
Let's face one fact -- you cannot separate race out of the health care debate. We can't know what's in one persons heart and we must acknowledge that every attack on the president isn't about his skin color. But 52% of the people in America who do not have health insurance are black or Hispanic. That's a simple majority that you and I see as a problem because it represents 25 million people who may die as a result of not having health care. To the folks taking to the streets to "take their country back" it represents 25 million undeserving people of color who they don't want to shell out even one penny to help. Read "Why Americans Hate Welfare" by Martin Gilens because he is a much better writer and researcher than I am. He follows the history of welfare, social security and other social safety net programs in America and finds (no surprise) that the most bitter opposition to these programs always goes along racial grounds.
I can't say that I enjoy this debate either because it's one that never gets resolved. And we do have bigger issues like health care which is a matter of life or death. Unfortunately in America, who lives and who dies can still be determined along racial and class lines.
I think it's telling that Wilson's son says that his father doesn't laugh at questionable jokes. How a man acts in front of his son says something important about him and in this case it says something good.
With that said, none of that means that Wilson didn't feel emboldened to get wildly inappropriate by the fact that he's white and the President is black.
"He doesn't even laugh at distasteful jokes," is what the young Wilson said, as if this is evidence of an unusually enlightened character.
The idea that it is NORMAL to laugh at distasteful jokes and that it is high-minded not to is a good example of what it's like to grow up white in South Carolina. It is a good example also of how many whites claim enlightenment on the question of racism while at the same time structuring the claim to downplay racism as something easily measured by one's response to jokes that are ubiquitous outside mixed company.
"I'm not racist, but did you hear the one about..."
As a white man in SC, I am frequently asked to participate in this kind of conspiratorial and supposedly benign jokiness. I suspect that the thing Carter is pointing to is a more public emergence of this kind of conspiratorial talk that has always occupied an uncomfortable spot in private interactions among whites down here...an effort I have always been subjected to that assumes an "us against them" connection based on skin color without any sense of need--without any shame because we're all good people--to see where I stand first.
Sorry, TNC, but I disagree with the contention that any discussion about racism automatically distracts from discussion of healthcare reform. This is just as wrong as the contention on many pundits that Obama is trying to do too much. It's not a if we can't work on more than one piece of legislation, or discuss more than one subject in this country.
Personally, I believe that a great deal of resistance to healthcare reform can be laid at the feet of racism. The school of "its the brown people who don't have it, so why do I care" is alive and well and preaching loud. And, I believe that Wilson is a member of that group. I don't have to "know what is in a man's heart" to know that his actions and words are racist.
Jimmy Carter is right, and any suggestion that he should just STFU because the country "can't handle the truth" (paging Jack Nicholson) is bullshit.
I don't think that's what I said. I just wrote the following two days ago:
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/09/race_is_a_factor_but.php
Sorry, but I took this: "Tha said, one reason some of us try to avoid this discussion is because of its enormous potential for distraction. From a black perspective, I care about the disproportionate number of black people who are sick and dying, not the contents of Joe Wilson's heart" to mean that you do not want to have this discussion of racism because it will distract from the halth care debate.
No, I think "Is Joe Wilson racist" distracts from the health care debate. I don't think, say, looking at how race may affect outcomes in terms of health care is a distraction. I don't think asking whether certain health care policies adversely affect people of color is a distraction.
"What they are, in the end, is ridiculously, unconscionably, boundlessly cynical."
Here, here.
Lets not forget the physics Carter depicted in his pictorial.
He said racism had bubbled to the surface.
Implying it had been buried for some amount of time by something, then something else happened and it came up like Jeb's oil in the Beverly Hillbilly's discovery during a possum hunt.
And that was a simple event which had earth changing effects.
The loss of homes, jobs, and dreams is trickling down and those who did it are blaming everyone. Those in dire straights do not have the where-with-all to crack the case and find out who really did it.
Especially when the Joesters of the world are feverishly trying to hide it.
So the old hate becomes that "bubbling crude" finding its way into our today.
Exactly. Nice analogy.
I'm sorry, I just can't get on board with the sentiment that President Carter's truth-telling creates another hurdle in the quest for getting major work accomplished. I thought telling the truth only stood in the way of one thing: propagating a lie. Or am I missing something?
Joe Wilson is on the record saying that it was mistaken to acknowledge that Strom Thurmond and Thomas Jefferson had children with black women. He says it diminishes their reputation so it's a mistake. So yeah, there's one of the racist bones in his body.
I understand defending "you lie" against cries of racism, but defending his entire life is disgusting.
I'm a white woman. When I was a kid, I used to fantasize about how, if I were a man, I would treat women with respect and as equals and not be a sexist bastard. When I grew up I realized this was actually just a fantasy about having power over another group - the power to "treat" them well or not.
I have a similar feeling about wanting to be one of the "good" white people. Yes, I have genuine desires not to be a racist asshole, and to overcome the racism I find within myself, but part of my desire not to be racist also comes from a racist place, where I view myself (or want to view myself?) as having power to "treat."
But on the Joe Wilson question, there is just no way for anyone, probably including Joe Wilson, to determine whether and to what extent racism plays a part. Maybe he sees Obama as (for instance) a sly deceiver, and maybe he is more likely to see a black man as a sly deceiver than a white man, but whether it's racism that pushes Obama across that line for him...how can anyone say?
Joe Wilson is racist like the winter is cold, and there's just as much we can do about it. It's part of the playing field and as I see it the only option is to elect more and better Democrats from the districts that don't spawn his type. We can't change him, the best we can do is marginalize him by keeping a large majority in the House so his opinion doesn't matter.
Is Joe Wilson a racist? Membership in the Sons of Confederate Veterans and rabid defense of the confederate flag sure seem to indicate he is. Was he being racist when he called Obama a liar? I don't know. But I am pretty sure he is a racist.
Who would have thought that one of the consequences of legislating civil rights would be that 45 years later we cannot come to agreement on what "racism" means or who is a "racist."
The white southern racists in my family would not have considered themselves to be "prejudiced" which is the word we used back in the 60s. They were actually passive racists. They made racial slurs only in the privacy of their own homes. They would never have harmed a black person in a one on one encounter, but they also did not concern themselves about social justice. "That's just the way things are," they would say. Unquestionably, they thought they were better than black people and I can tell you that the civil rights movement scared the living hell out of them. Back then, you didn't consider yourself "prejudiced" unless you attended meetings wearing a white hood and sheet.
People certainly have the right to their own self-concept. Arguing with someone about what he is and what he is not seems beyond futile. All you can really do is examine the evidence and study the patterns and interrelationships. Even if we converged on a 2009, 21st century definition of "racist," it does not matter whether or not we could compile a list of names of those who are indisputably racist.
What matters, in the context of President Obama's administration, is that the conservative right is using race to advance their agenda and capitalize on whatever residual fear of the racial "other" that is still present in the white majority. This was 100% predictable and it has been evident since the weekend of Reverand Wright. Furthermore, the GOP agenda right now consists mainly of defeating health care reform before the 2010 elections by showing Obama to be a weak and ineffectual leader and the Democrats as being unable to legislate their own agenda despite their majority status.
All they are trying to do right now is get rid of some Democrats in 2010. If they succeed, then 2012 starts looking a little better for them.
From the Huffpo article.
I'm not going to call Joe Wilson a racist. I am begining to wonder what that word means. Considering his defense of Strom Thurmond in light of evidence of what Thurmond actually did, unreconstructed is probably a better term to describe Joe Wilson.
In case it is of relevance, Joe Wilson was the co-chair of the India caucus. http://www.usindiafriendship.net/congress1/wilson/wilson-statements.htm
Wikipedia: In 2003, Wilson voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, including its Section 1011 authorizing $250,000 annually of taxpayer money to reimburse hospitals for treatment of illegal immigrants. In 2009, Wilson changed to his current position opposing public funds for healthcare of illegal immigrants.
TNC is right. There are layers upon layers here.
And this is hilarious: Thurmond's Biracial Daughter Seeks to Join Confederacy Group (NY Times, 7/ 2/2004, p13, 1p): Essie Mae Washington-Williams, a biracial woman who stepped forward last year to acknowledge that she was the daughter of the late Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, now wants to join the United Daughters of the Confederacy, an organization of descendants of soldiers who fought for the South in the Civil War. Evidently she is eligible: Senator Thurmond, once a fierce segregationist, was a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a similar group for men. Ms. Washington-Williams, a 78-year-old retired teacher who lives in Los Angeles, also plans to apply for membership in the Daughters of the American Revolution and the Black Patriots Foundation, which honors black Revolutionary War fighters. One of her two sons will apply to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, her lawyer said.
There is a certain satisfying circularity about this "tea party" opposition to health care reform. Let's revisit the original one, in Boston Harbor in 17(cough-cough). The tea-dumping was done by angry white colonists dressed as people of color--Indians. They were misrepresenting who they really were. Now comes the New Tea Party guests. And they can be read as corporate and lobbying interests who come out and misrepresent themselves as angry white Americans with little good to say about one particular person of color, the President.
I'm glad Carter said it. I doubt he was thinking about health care strategy - he's not a political strategist. He's a highly moral man who says what he thinks and speaks out against injustice when he sees it, which tends to make him enemies (as in the case of Peace Not Apartheid). That may not always be productive or create useful debate, seeing that he's now written another book on mideast peace with a less inflammatory title. But honestly and calling things like they are are qualities seen far too little among politicians, so I'm always glad to hear what Carter has to say.
Also, the South is Carter's home. I'm sure he'd like to see it improve, so he's inclined to point out when there are strong elements in Southern culture that are a problem. How a man like him managed to come out of a toxic place like that is beyond me, but I'm glad he did.
On Joe Wilson: I don't see how someone can get racism from "You lie!", but given other comments he's made about Thurmond it's pretty clear that he is racist regardless of the heckling.
Bad news for the right wing when they are debating against a southern white former president from 1980.
Carter says a lot of interesting and controversial things. More power to him. If Beck and Limbaugh want to devote show after show to Carter, more power to them.
I think Carter oversimplifies and paints with too broad a brush on this and other topics (the mideast comes to mind). While I'm sure he fancies himself an intrepid truthteller here, he's leaving out too much nuance and detail to capture the truth. Racism and demagogic appeals to racism undoubtedly add to the teabag frenzy, but after having witnessed the fury that surrounded Clinton, it's hard to say that they are the sole or even primary source of that frenzy.
I also agree with our host that Carter's words (partly because of their imprecision) serve as an unwonted distraction right now. They'll just provide fodder for 'race-card' accusations and push the focus off of healthcare. The political timing couldn't be more inept. All that said, I do begin to worry about Obama's safety.