Racism is not a personal moral flaw. It's a role you play in a system.

[Recursion]

Maybe we need to do a better job of communicating that, but once upon a time DU understood that. The white side of my family in Mississippi were not sick evil people in the 1960's who became less evil over time; they were good people in a sick system that became (somewhat) less sick over time.

Being checked about racism is not an assault on your virtue; it's a reminder of the roles you play often without seeing them. Racism is not about you and never was, and it doesn't help discussion to take it that way.

Just a multiracial American's (whose kids, inshallah, will be even "more" multiracial) two cents...

[JustAnotherGen]

1. This is an interesting thread

Another multiracial American here . . . I do feel that being a bigot is a flaw - moral or otherwise. That's just my opinion. I'm also at 40 years of age too damn tired to try and set people straight that are bigots on a day to day basis. My feeling is that this is 2013 and they are already being left behind to wallow in their own ignorance so time is on my side.

Racism (structural and built into society) - I'm in total agreement with. "A reminder of the roles you often play without seeing them." But that's like trying to get SOME white DU'ers to understand white privilege. It's beyond some folks here and they refuse to admit they are the dominant image of 'perfection' in America. They refuse the reality - so they can't be reasoned with.

[Lunacee_2013]

27. I'll be the first to admit that as a white woman in the south

of course I have privilege. It is frustrating to see people who just can't see their own privilege, be it white, male, straight, or rich.

This may seem silly to some, but one thing I see all the time that really bothers me is black people being followed by store security. A few years ago I was at my local mall shopping for a dress, when I saw that the store was having a sell on jewelry. As I was looking at earrings, a black lady, nicely dressed, nails done, brand new shoes, came over and started looking too. I swear that within 60 seconds a crowd of normally dressed people surrounded us. As soon as she walked away to answer her cell, the crowd left, but when she came back the same exact people surrounded her again. I'm not completely sure if they were plainly dressed store security, but it was obvious they were watching her. It was just to weird.
L

[Buzz Clik]

2. This gets back to what racism and racists really are:

Racism is not an insensitive comment made at an inappropriate time. Racism is not the perception of bias toward certain people or attitudes. It is deep-rooted and a reflection of personal character.

The response to a horrid remark may quite accurately be stated, "That is a racist comment," but labeling as racist the person delivering the remark requires far greater knowledge. More importantly, and I think where Recursion may be going with this, trying to sort out whether or not a person is a racist takes the conversation away from anything productive.

As always, stay with the issues and avoid the personal diatribes and insults.

[bemildred]

3. Yes, "racist" is something you do, not something you are. You are what you do.

Hanging out with people who are completely not like you is very educational too, besides helping you get over xenophobia in all its many forms.

[reflection]

15. This.

It wasn't until I began to venture outside my comfort zone and make friends with people unlike me that I truly began to understand. Call it a slow epiphany I suppose. And I've still got some road to travel on the personal growth journey.

[bemildred]

28. Thank you. It was a long road for me too, and it is never done, but it is well worth it. nt

[graham4anything]

4. I am Jewish.after being married, moved to a tiny apartment in Brooklyn. When we interviewed for it..

the super's grade school daughter came down the steps from another floor and asked me

Are you Italian?
Back then, the neighborhood was 95% Italian.

Not being born yesterday, I knew what the kid was asking.

I said WHY?

She obviously misheard me, went upstairs, and the super came down and we got the apartment

and lived there 9 years.

Week before moving to a house we bought, the nosy senior citizen(spokesperson for the block) said, hey come here a second

and point blank asked- you aren't Italian are you? You are Jewish.
ANd I said, (like wow, what a revalation it was) who said I was Italian?

Needless to say, all our "neighbors" on the day we loaded the Hertz and moved out, NOT ONE said goodbye to us.
And we saw them peering through the windows.

That was in Brooklyn.

And it sucked, and it sucks today that in some places racism, sexism, homophobia, religion, anything is still in practice.

For those that were around back then, in 1968, George Wallace and his Dixiecrats won 47 electoral votes using racism.
And in 2013, Ron and Rand Paul and their friend David Duke are doing the same as Wallace did.
(and of course, the Bush's use it for political advantage
(who can forget in 1988, they sent country singer Loretta Lynn out to campaign for 41, and she made fun of Mike Dukakis' last name,
and straight out said "what kind of American name is that".

Nationwide, worldwide, it is wrong.

God Help us if Zimmy in Florida gets a hung jury because one juror was either bought or is a racist.

[flamingdem]

49. Understand

A friend indirectly implied I was jewish when moving into a jewish apt. one time.. that brought me some benefits

[HiPointDem]

57. 9 years and none of your neighbors talked to you? maybe it was you.

[graham4anything]

58. After 9 years of talking & being friend, the last weeks, NO ONE said goodbye because I was Jewish.

re-read it.
We were fine when they thought we were something else.

And in NYC, it is illegal to have asked a question like they did in the first place.

[HiPointDem]

59. i don't believe you. let's leave it at that.

[BainsBane]

5. Excellent point

[el_bryanto]

6. This is thoughtful and well written

But it comes at a moment when people are being accused of racism for opposing President Obama's PRISM programs, and it isn't really relevant to that discussion. People who are upset with the President aren't upset because he is black, they are upset because he presented himself as an idealist who would fix certain abuses and he hasn't lived up to that, and in some ways has gone the other way.

You can argue that some of this opposition is overblown, and you can argue that these programs serve a valuable purpose - but to suggest that people oppose them because of racism is a red herring at best.

I do agree more or less with what this post states, but in the larger context at DU it's problematic I think.

Bryant

[Recursion]

7. I'll admit I missed the original blow-up...

... I just saw people saying "I don't believe in unconscious racism and I'm a good person so I can't be racist" and whatever, which always sets me off.

[el_bryanto]

9. That's a longer discussion.

At this board, and in society in general, being accused of racism is one of the most serious things you can be accused of. Being a racist is seen as being pretty terrible and immoral - admitting to being a racist is pretty much the same as admitting to being a hateful immoral bad person. Nobody wants to do it.

I think you are right though when you talk about a racist system. I am a white male and I have benefited from a system which privileges white males - I can't fix the system on my own, but I can take necessary steps to treat all people fairly and to try and end the racist cycle of white privileges.

Bryant

[Recursion]

14. I think the words I bolded are what I really care about: it's not about the "racist".

You see this a lot in responses to sexual harassment too: the response becomes about the harasser to exclusion of the harassee. The person saying or doing something racist may be a very good or very bad person and may have the best or worst intentions but that is completely beside the point either way. It's not about them.

Somebody made a great post when a fan harassed a female author at a sci fi convention last year:

If you step on my foot, you need to get off my foot.

If you step on my foot without meaning to, you need to get off my foot.

If you step on my foot without realizing it, you need to get off my foot.

If everyone in your culture steps on feet, your culture is horrible, and you need to get off my foot.

If you have foot-stepping disease, and it makes you unaware you’re stepping on feet, you need to get off my foot. If an event has rules designed to keep people from stepping on feet, you need to follow them. If you think that even with the rules, you won’t be able to avoid stepping on people’s feet, absent yourself from the event until you work something out.

If you’re a serial foot-stepper, and you feel you’re entitled to step on people’s feet because you’re just that awesome and they’re not really people anyway, you’re a bad person and you don’t get to use any of those excuses, limited as they are. And moreover, you need to get off my foot.

See, that’s why I don’t get the focus on classifying harassers and figuring out their motives. The victims are just as harassed either way.

[el_bryanto]

17. Is there someone specific you are calling out?

Or is this just a general statement?

Or to put it another way - who's foot am I standing on and how am I standing on it?

Bryant

[Recursion]

19. Oh, no, just the level of front-page threads about it reached a threshhold for me

Sorry if that sounded like a specific point at someone.

[Just Saying]

21. I really like that.

Thanks for posting it.

[redqueen]

16. No. It is not for merely being opposed to "Obama's" PRISM programs.

The invective being hurled at Obama and anyone who doesn't show sufficient outrage cannot be explained by mere opposition to a program. People on this board have disagreed about many programs, issues, and politicians over the years. There is a clear difference now.

[el_bryanto]

23. There is plenty of invective right now

I don't think it's limited to one side or the other - again suggesting that people who oppose the PRISM program are racist is beyond the pale in my opinion.

I think the invective might be because we are more evenly divided on this issue than others. On many issues 70 to 80% of DU is on one side, and so people on the other side don't tend to stick their heads up as much, and those that do aren't as much of a problem - on this one the split maybe much closer to the middle, with thoughtful people on both sides of the fence (and passionate angry people as well).

I think, on the part of those who are upset by the PRISM Program, there's also a deep disappointment - they feel as though Obama who they supported and voted for has now tuned them out - ignoring their desires and going against their values; values they assumed that Obama Shared.

Bryant

[Lunacee_2013]

8. I think it can be both.

But I totally agree with you on the system thing. I think racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, etc. are all part of a bigger system designed to keep us peasants in our place and afraid of each other, divide and conquer and all that.

[boston bean]

18. I don't for one minute buy into that divide and conquer bs.

All of those isms are wrong. That is not division it is a call to right the wrongs. To lump them all together diminishes one group or another who face these isms. It takes each group fighting for their causes. Many overlap and intersect but the don't all fit perfectly into a box.

If there were no class issues, what in the world would make one think there still wouldn't be all the other isms?

All the money in the world distributed equally amongst every human being would not snuff out racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

[socialist_n_TN]

37. RE: your last sentence........

All the money in the world distributed equally WOULD stuff out all those thing you metioned (except homophobia; homophobia is a bias) because, with an equal distribution of wealth, THOSE ISSUES WOULDN'T MATTER TO THE AFFECTEE! IOW, it WOULD be a personal failing to be homophobic or biased against a person because of gender, race or ethnicity, but without the power economics, politics, and society gives to the oppressor, it wouldn't be systemic oppression. It would be just that, a personal bias.

What makes those biases MATTER to the affectee is the power society gives to affect his/her life and well being.

[boston bean]

38. Life, freedom, nt

[socialist_n_TN]

40. ?????...

Life and freedom and the etc. would be MORE free without the systemic oppression of capitalism, a system based on class.

[boston bean]

43. Woman could still be discriminated against, ie abortion

And freedom to make choices regarding their own bodies.

People could still be hated and murdered because of their race or because they are LGBT.

To name a couple. Having the same income does nothing to stop those things.

[HiPointDem]

51. it takes away the financial power of elites to enforce such things.

[boston bean]

52. No it does not.

You going to give up democracy.. No congress. No president? No judicial branch?

There will be people with their hands on the levers of power always. Itis their beliefs and the beliefs of their supporters who can effect these things.

Even in the work place you can bring home a dollar the same way as everyone else and still be discriminated against in many other ways.

[HiPointDem]

56. 'giving up democracy' = allowing unbridled concentration of wealth. it is not *beliefs* that

create prejudice, it it state & elite power to manipulate & sanction.

racism against blacks was *created* by the slave system & extended by the wage slave system.

our *beliefs* are a product of how our society is organized & how we get our livings. beliefs change when those things do. elites reinforce racism *every fucking day* and all you have to do is turn on the tv to see it plain.

you will never get *anywhere* attacking racism, sexism, whatever-ism at the level of individual *belief,* as if it were just a matter of 'bad' individuals with 'false' beliefs.

a class society, a hierarchical society, a divided society, *requires* a scapegoated class; dividing into identity groups is just another mechanism to reinforce such divisions and bolster the position of elites.

[boston bean]

60. Within the same class the isms still exist. And they always will.

[HiPointDem]

61. i don't understand what you mean by 'within the same class'. and the same 'isms' have not

always existed, and will not always exist.

ahistorical assertion.

[boston bean]

62. There are poor racist, misogynist, homophobes

There are rich racist, misogynist, homophobes.

There are middle class racists, misogynists, homophobes.

It exists today this way, what in the world would make anyone think that it would go away if there was only one class?

There would be other ways for those to exert power over those they are biased against.

And I have already made mention of above.

[HiPointDem]

63. yes, there are racists in every class; i still fail to see your point, why would you expect that

only one class would have the monopoly?

racism cutting across class boundaries is exactly what you'd expect. Racism is promoted by elites (in hundreds of ways) in order to *deflect* from class & economic issues, to *mystify* them.

You act as though 'bias' were genetic. it's not. it's a social product and as such is subject to alteration by social practice.

[boston bean]

65. That politicians and elites use these divisions

Is only a tactic. It does not mean that all other isms disappear if there was only one class.

That is and has been my point throughout all of this.

Even if there was one class, I still don't see how it would change the tactics. But that is an off shoot to the point I have been making throughout this sub thread.

[HiPointDem]

66. they don't just *use* such divisions, they actively *create* them, purposefully, to *divide*

people.

FOR MANY people coming to radical politics--Blacks and whites alike--hatred of racism and a desire to get rid of it is a huge motivating factor. This is in contrast to some of the common assumptions about where racism comes from.

The first is that racism is part of human nature--that it's always existed and always will. The second is the liberal idea of racism--that it comes from people's bad ideas, and that if we could change these ideas, we could get rid of it.

Both assumptions are wrong. Racism isn't just an ideology but is an institution. And its origins don't lie in bad ideas or in human nature. Rather, racism originated with capitalism and the slave trade. As the Marxist writer CLR James put it, "The conception of dividing people by race begins with the slave trade. This thing was so shocking, so opposed to all the conceptions of society which religion and philosophers had…that the only justification by which humanity could face it was to divide people into races and decide that the Africans were an inferior race."

History proves this point. Prior to the advent of capitalism, racism as a systematic form of oppression did not exist. For example, ancient Greek and Roman societies had no concept of race or racial oppression.

These weren't liberated societies. They were built on the backs of slaves. And these societies created an ideology to justify slavery. As the Greek philosopher Aristotle put it in his book Politics, "Some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter, slavery is both expedient and right."

However, because slavery in ancient Greece and Rome was not racially based, these societies had no corresponding ideology of racial inferiority or oppression. In fact, Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Early Christian societies had a favorable image of Blacks and of African societies.

http://socialistworker.org/2002-2/431/431_08_Racism.shtml

[boston bean]

67. They exist in the hearts and mind of people.

Politicians use those biases to create fear in the pursuit of enacting some legislation or to get elected. Where it came from in ancient Rome means nothing today.

If it weren't there in the first place it would do them no good.

That is why there is a need for civil rights activists, LGBT activists, feminists, etc. Not just class activists. It years and years of these isms throughout history and no amount af class equity will make people change. Bigots are bigots. Politicians can be bigots. It there in the hearts and mind of some people.

If money healed this rich people wouldn't be bigots.

[HiPointDem]

68. people's 'hearts and minds' are conditioned by their physical and social existence and have

no independent existence of their own. to say they do is equivalent to saying racism is genetic and inborn. You may not realize it, but this stance is no different from the stance of the 'racists' you supposedly oppose.

Representative John L. Dawson, a member of Congress after the Civil War, insisted that racial prejudice was “implanted by Providence for wise purposes.” Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin, a contemporary of Dawson’s, claimed that an “instinct of our nature” impelled us to sort people into racial categories and to recognize the natural supremacy of whites when compared to people with darker skins.

i don't think you understand how your assertion that 'activists' are needed undercuts your proposition that bigotry is eternal. and vice-versa.

the lack of 'racism' in greece & rome, multi-cultural international imperialist societies, means quite a bit today unless you're ideologically incapable of seeing it.

[boston bean]

69. I'm quite capable of knowing the environment I live in today.

You won't convince that without a class structure that all other isms disappear.

Have the last word. I'm not going to respond any further to a circular discussion. I have made myself as clear as possible..

Take the last response if need be.

[HiPointDem]

70. you are not special in living in an 'environment' today. your 'clarity' consists simply of

repeating a proposition over and over.

doesn't make it true.

[Lunacee_2013]

72. I know that you and B.B. had a heated debate, but

I do agree with a lot of what both of you posted. And I learned something, so thank you!

[socialist_n_TN]

73. And you seem to believe that an economic democracy.....

wouldn't have laws AGAINST murdering or assaulting a person because of their identities. Which I can ASSURE you would NOT be the case. But what you WOULD have with economic democracy would be actual ACTION on these laws. Without an economic and political elitist power structure actually encouraging division based on identity, there would be no reason NOT to enforce laws that were enacted to enforce equality or even laws to prevent the simple assault on a citizen by another citizen. What's more, with a workers' government in place and popularly supported, SOCIETY itself would change simply because society would no longer be propagandized into stereotypical roles based SOLELY on keeping the elite in power in said society.

Engels wrote a good bit about this. It would be worth some study.

And as to your specific examples, under a workers' government, abortion would be totally legal and totally up to the woman involved and murders based on race, gender, or orientation would STILL be murder and punished accordingly. More so than in the current capitalist system.

[redqueen]

44. [phone]

[Lunacee_2013]

47. Whoa, I don't think they all fit perfectly together.

But, like you said, they do overlap. And I think groups can both fight their own battles and help other oppressed peoples.

Of course distributing all the money equally won't solve racism. I never said that.

Also, I believe in the divide and conquer thing because of how the Republican Party runs it election campaigns. They use fear (and hate) of Gays, Blacks and Hispanics th get lower class, working poor whites to vote for them.

[boston bean]

48. Republicans do that and most could give a shit less about

Progressive thought on those matters.

So, why would any democrat agree with it?

[Lunacee_2013]

50. I'm not sure I understand your question.

Maybe I missed something. Agree with what, the d and a thing? Because I've seen it happen.

[JI7]

55. yes, i'm reminded of Nigella Lawson and some of the reactions to what happened to her

[Hoyt]

10. I think it is usually both a flaw, and a role some people are too willing to play.

Your point is a good way to look at it though.

[cheyanne]

11. Thank you for cogent explanation.

I'd like to add that this distinction between personal and systemic racism also applies to conservatives.

It is a personal moral flaw to demonize your opponents. Conservatives are not morally inferior people. I may feel that they are caught in a delusional bubble about our society bred on fear, but they are still good mothers, fathers, citizens.

Remember they are on the side of a losing battle because they are working from a base of delusional ideas (thanks, Fox). As the dissonance between their ideas and reality become greater (Obamacare will not destroy America, etc.), the umber of members of their cause will decline until they are powerless.

[jtuck004]

26. "It is a personal moral flaw to demonize your opponents." Perhaps, but it's an effective

political tactic. And since many people only care about winning, not about the outcome, expect to see more.

[Cirque du So-What]

12. Your definition of 'racism' is somewhat similar to mine

I classify beliefs alone as 'bigotry,' but when one actively participates in a system that discriminates, I call that 'racism.'

[boston bean]

13. I will agree with you.

Sometimes I don't think people are taking into consideration their words and how they can be interpreted using historical biases. And sometimes it is racist whether they want to realize it or not.

It sort of a self check that is required and choosing what you say in a way that is thoughtful and not using tropes. Whether someone means it in a racist way or not will be determined by the reader not the writer. It's important for the reader to challenge this stuff. It certainly can make for better conversations in the long run. And provide for a better understanding of others, if one doesn't shut their ears to the concern.

That doesn't mean that every criticism has a basis in racism.

[sibelian]

20. Accusations of racism that are used to block communication and obfuscate issues

are NOT OKAY.

The suggestion that such accusations must be tacitly accepted at face value because racism is systemic are

NOT OKAY.

[Recursion]

22. It only "blocks communication" if you shut down when someone points it out

Try listening more than bristling, maybe?

[JustAnotherGen]

25. +1

FYI - I trashed any threads with the word 'snowden' in the title. So I'm missing all of the back and forth.

But - I agree. Listening is key.

I also think just in general - blacks have had to take a back seat this entire administration- while at the same time we've seen a huge amount of racial invective thrown at this man and well - us. . . black President made us 'fair game' if you will.

I guess - I'm not going to shut and be a good 'one' and go sit in the corner. IF I see it - I'm calling it out. And that's that. At minimum - I do a pretty good job of making fun of the person spouting the nonsense right to their face and they have no clue I'm doing it. Either direct or joking - I'm not going to NOT point it out when it is so blatant.

[Number23]

71. "I trashed any threads with the word 'snowden' in the title" SOOO many wise people doing that

That must be why the endless, never ending, non-ceasing threads on this topic aren't getting the usual 250+ recs.

[carolinayellowdog]

34. I know where you are coming from, but unconscious racism is a reality

Sure, people who voted enthusiastically for Obama twice and are now pissed off by the NSA revelations have not suddenly started to hate him for his race. That thread was an abomination. On the other hand, people who enthuse about how wonderful the country would be if they could just "get rid of" all southerners, are implicitly racist. They are advocating ethnic cleansing of most blacks and half of the Hispanics in the country, but think it isn't racist because their rationale is geographical rather than explicitly racist.

The implicit unconscious racism is apparent in the fact that they never advocate "getting rid of" most of the reddest states: (in order) Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, Alaska, Oklahoma. Only #7 Alabama needs to be gotten rid of, along with far less red states like Virginia and North Carolina.

[JustAnotherGen]

35. Racism?

Or Regionalism?


Racism is for what people physically are. You are never physically a 'state'. You have Regionalism right here in the North East . . .


New Jerseyans vs the Bennies (New Yorkers who come to the shore). Seriously- being a transplant here from the wilds of the sticks of western ny - I never knew this kind of serious breakdown in relations existed.


You can physically change your location.

You cannot just STOP being a black person, an asian person, a caucasian person, etc. etc.

No one is calling for the genocide of the people of the former Confederate States of America.

What they are calling for his a do-over so they can 'win' and be their own country. Which yep - that's stupid. Because they don't even realize that the CSA WON the Peace for at least 100 years . . . hence why my mixed race family could not move back to Alabama in the late 1970's after my father's military service and sacfrice as an elite officer.


Is right that folks get frustrated and pop off at the mouth about the South? Nope. But it's not racism. It's regionalism and frustration that there are certain people in the Southern States that want to keep re-fighting the Civil War when they just need move on already. There've been how many wars since then?

[carolinayellowdog]

39. Virginia and North Carolina rank #1 and #2 in black/white intermarriage

I went to grad school in Alabama and would not wish to live there, because although my mixed heritage and biracial family are not visible, I was quite offended by the casual racism of everyday discourse among whites. (This was almost 40 years ago but I doubt much has changed compared to the changes in the upper South.) But I have also lived briefly in the Great Lakes states and found casually racist discourse to be a lot more common up there than in Virginia, too.

Actually, in history thousands annually have "stopped being a black person" by crossing the color line; and now their descendants when finding out this heritage via DNA testing and genealogy have "stopped being a white person" in terms of how they envision themselves and history. What I love about this region compared to others is that everyone knows we're related at least subliminally, and it doesn't take much prodding to get people to admit it. I don't think northerners or deep southerners feel any such sense of kinship between the so-called races; hope I'm wrong.

For several years I have been working on various book projects involving the history of abolitionism. Started out feeling that all these people were complete heroes, but while I still admire them there was a hell of a lot of unconscious racism even on the "right" side of the controversy. People saying the main reason to abolish slavery was to stop miscegenation; fervent advocates of African relocation, etc.

As for wanting to re-fight, in states where the population was deeply divided (most of my southern ancestors were Unionists, and this contingency is well represented in local reenactments) the interest in the Civil War is much more subtle and complicated than that. Not that I claim to understand it all, but I have gotten acquainted with reenactors black and white and it's not about the glories of slavery for any of them.

[JustAnotherGen]

41. Eh

I'm completely 'swirled' if you will and I most certainly do not 'pass' for anything. Now my father's mother COULD have but she went out and found the blackest black man she could as she didn't want her children to experience what she did (born at turn of last century and raised in Mississippi).

Well, well, well - look how she reacted when my dad brought my mom home.

Only re-enactments I've seen in NJ or NY are Revolutionary and War of 1812. I'm not saying we don't have them here - I just don't think people relate to it at all up here.

I literally live in a town that has a few homes Washington stayed in . . . And that's a big deal. Civil War - it's not in the woodwork if you know what I mean.

[carolinayellowdog]

42. "passing" is largely a 19th/20th century phenomenon

but in my case it was 18thc "free mulattoes" in colonial records who turned magically "white" as of the 1790 census, a reward for fighting on the patriot side of the Revolution, it seems. For those who came after, whiteness wasn't a privilege bestowed on selected people of mixed ancestry, but rather a default assumption in places they migrated to, away from places where everyone knew their family history.

DNA testing has been a tremendous boon IMO, both in letting "white" people realize that they're not, quite, and in letting "black" people realize that admixture is not attributable solely to male slaveowners impregnating female slaves, but rather an enormously complicated history of free people of color largely descended from black male/white female liaisons in the 17th/18th centuries.

Maybe I should go to the African American forum to get into the weeds of this-- perhaps a safer place.

[JustAnotherGen]

45. Oh

I know all of this. Yes - definitely take it to the African American forum where we can have a robust discussion. You'll find many like-minded folks with the same knowledge base in our little nook back there.

[JustAnotherGen]

46. BTW

She (my dad's mother)

Mother: Irish/Cherokee - Father: Black Gentleman from Great Britain (Physician) with blue eyes - about my complexion.


They were married in the late 1890s in Missisippi . . . Brave brave souls.

Make my mom and dad look like light weights (Married in 1969). And my husband and I don't even leave the bench!

[ananda]

24. Here's an example.

How many white people just accept and tacitly support
the targeting and incarceration of non white people?

Not to speak of the economic inequality and targeting
of non whites for foreclosures, high loan rates, and
movement out of gentrified inner cities.

[Just Saying]

29. And how about the "reverse racism" mantra from the right?

They justify their own racism by claiming African Americans don't like them either. For proof, they use election data because they know "those people" only voted for him because he's black. Never mind that African Americans have voted heavily Democratic for decades or that the GOP doesn't hide their own racism as well as they think they do. (All discussions of black people become about welfare, oppose affirmative action, key words like "lazy" and "elitist&quot .

[JustAnotherGen]

36. +1

And there is no reverse racism.

Prejudice and bigotry is prejudice and bigotry.


How to stop a bigot with a chip on their shoulder? Ask them would they rather be the 13% or would they rather be what they are. Tends to shut them up pretty quick.


And they always fail to acknowledge that their Party has told lies about black Americans (very serious ones since 1978). We KNOW they are lies. So if they are lying ABOUT us what are they lying TO us about?

[HiPointDem]

64. how about it? it's precisely what you'd expect when discussion of economic issues is 'racialized'

in order to prevent unity between those affected by policies which benefit economic elites.

'reverse racism' is just another of those diversionary tactics. 'reverse racism' was invented by elites precisely for that reason.

[Cigar11]

30. Well said ...

... and true

[carolinayellowdog]

31. Racism is systemic privilege and discrimination; racialism is intellectual fraud

I see plenty of both and think the former depends somewhat on the latter. My own mixed heritage is not visible, but that is not the case for other family members. So I get to experience the awful things whites say to other whites; they get to experience what it's like to be visibly mixed. But we all get to live in a society that does not seem able to grasp the simple fact that race is a social construct and not a biological reality. That realization seems limited to a couple of minorities-- those with "multi-racial" families, and people educated in social science and biology.

[treestar]

32. Good post. "You call me a racist" is taking it in a way

trying to make the individual a victim and to thus avoid the issue.

[SpearthrowerOwl]

33. Say what you will about the origins of racism..

..but racism in politics merely serves those in power. Racism almost always coincides with populations that are oppressed. This allows one to feel "okay" about oppressing their fellow man by dehumanizing them. It's quite possible that if these two almost always coincide, it's possible that the oppression itself serves to create the racism, thereby reversing the order I've implied that these two manifest themselves. I don't know the answer to this question.

The great political scientist Michael Parenti discusses racism in this detail:

[ismnotwasm]

53. Not always

Sometimes it is a 'personal moral flaw' and people ARE racists. Delighted to be racists. A racists 'virtue' is less important to me that the harm they cause, and the racist systems they perpetuate.

Institutionalized racism, which you are referring too, I agree completely .

[Savannahmann]

54. I had hoped that if I ignored this thread, it would go away.

So I'll reply finally. Nuts.

[Ms. Toad]

74. While this is a good discussion, and a good reminder

Last edited Thu Jun 20, 2013, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)

It is inappropriate in the context in which accusations of racism are currently being hurled on DU.

There are many of us who have opposed the Patriot Act, and similar government actions, from well before 9/11. I have personally opposed it since an organization I was a member of was spied on as part of COINTELPRO in the 70s, I opposed it when I participated in the decision to pursue the documentation of that spying through FOIA requests, I opposed it when the Patriiot Act was passed, I opposed it when when that organization previously spied on was spied on again ~200 and I have opposed the inappropriate secret, collection of data by this administration and the previous one.

Pulling the race card in this context has nothing to do with race being a systemic matter, rather than a moral one, with the exception that those playing the card are - perhaps unconsciously - attempting to tap into the similar systemic reality of liberal white guilt - by accusing people with sincere and long standing objections of being racist for expressing them.

This is a facet of racism I know all too personally. My white liberal guilt, at age 19, caused me to react inappropriately when I was approached by a black man I did not know. I did not want to appear to be racist by rejecting overtures from this stranger - overtures which I would have immediately rejected had they been made by a white man. Because I reacted out of that white liberal guilt, I was raped. And - the person who raped me accurately chose me as a target because he was pretty sure how I would react (based on age, dress, and trappings which suggested my political leanings). I know this because when the police hauled him in to give him a good scare (the thought of actually prosecuting him never crossed their minds), they pulled his rap sheet - which included around a dozen more very similar victims and MOs. I have never before publicly (even under the cloak of anonymity) disclosed his race - there is too much baggage associated with interracial rape. It has been used far too often as a justification for literal or figurative lynchings, and I want no part of that.

But the race dynamic here on DU, in these recent conversation, is toxic - so I think it is instructive to talk about how I see the race card being played here. Those yelling racism here, in the context of this conversation, are attempting to use race in the same way the person who raped me did. To call out that white liberal guilt which manifests itself as a fear that if we reject anything this black president does, we will appear to be racist - even though we would, and have, rejected similar or identical actions by white presidents. And I find that offensive.

[scarletwoman]

75. Brava! Excellent post - very well said, and I imagine not an easy one to write.

All I can say is thank you for speaking up so eloquently.

But the race dynamic here on DU, in these recent conversation, is toxic

Exactly. I'm still stunned that there are DUers who would stoop so low.

sw

[Ms. Toad]

76. Definitely not easy.

It is only recently (nearly 4 decades later) that I have encountered a single other person who has lived with the same tension personally - knowing the source of her own response, yet not wanting to contribute to the way rape has been used as a tool of racial oppression against black men and women. Her choice to speak of the race of her attacker comes from the same motivation as my own choice not to speak of it - and I am grateful for the eloquent way in which she has addressed all of the racial dynamics of a story so very similar to mine. (And, ironically, but for the day of the week she was raped - I would have met her in person years ago as a hospital advocate for the Rape Crisis Center - I remember that summer, and all of the campus rapes that summer very well.)

[HiPointDem]

77. +1.

[noiretextatique]

78. i have been absent of late, but i am totally appalled by these accusations

and i am black. i do not believe criticizing the president = racism, and it is an offensive notion. i've seen it bandided about in a few threads here, and the most offensive posts claim that liberals and progressives are more guilty or as guilty as republicons. yes...the samr republicons who have said all kinds of racist, disgusting things about the president and his family...the same republicons who've posted outrageous racist crap on facebook and elsewhere and who carry racists signs in public. the third wayers have truly stooped to a new LOW by hurling these insulting accusation at people like me...a person who is crititical of some of the president's policies, strategies, and priorities.
i read a post today that listed a bunch of black celebrities and politicians who support the president, including an article denigrating a few black people who have been critical of him...perhaps for petty reasons, perhaps not. i find it all disgusting, counterproductive, and further proof that third wayers only want our votes...not our input or criticism.

thank you for sharing what must be a very painful memory, and providing some context for this current round of reprehensible and wrong-hearded accusations of racism.

[Ms. Toad]

79. Thank you for your response.

This tension between acknowledging trying to move beyond the shameful role racism has played in our history (and in our present), on the one hand, and avoiding - or doing - things out of fear of being perceived as racist is something we ought to be having conversations about. Slinging the racism label about because some of us disagree with Barack Obama on policy does not help move those conversations forward.

[noiretextatique]

80. it most certainly does not move conversation...and that is the purpose

it's a thinly-veiled and highly offensive attempt to silence people by shaming them with a label. it's complete bullshit, and it is offensive to the core. peace.