How Racism Works
From Letters to the Editors @ Fort Worth Star-Telegram - today
How racism works
What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review?
What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?
What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said "I do" to?
What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer measured up to his standards?
What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but acquired them illegally through her charitable
organization?
What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?
What if Obama were a member of the "Keating 5"?
What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?
If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?
This is what racism does.
It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes
Positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.
- Kelvin LaFond, Fort Worth
How racism works
What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review?
What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?
What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said "I do" to?
What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer measured up to his standards?
What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but acquired them illegally through her charitable
organization?
What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?
What if Obama were a member of the "Keating 5"?
What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?
If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?
This is what racism does.
It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes
Positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.
- Kelvin LaFond, Fort Worth
Advertisement
Just has to be about race, right? Did you leave anything out? Can't think of a couple of positive what ifs about McCain? Is your own racism showing?
September 17, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you and erline should talk this over.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/obama-leads-mccain-among-poor.php
If you really want to talk, that is.
September 17, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying race isn't a factor. I just think 1) It's influence tends to be exaggerated and over-simplified 2) Working class whites tend to be unfairly tagged with it.
As a black person who works with working class white people it gets my back up when pundits talk about them like they're stupid, racist sheep.
September 17, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whites generally, and blue collar/working class whites specifically, tend to be accurately "tagged" as racist. In other words: you should hear what they say when there are no blacks/minorities in the room.
I know what they say because I'm able to "pass".
You are being much too fair, Erline.
September 18, 2008 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
After the primaries, when anybody who said a kind word about Hillary Clinton was called a "racist" hundreds of times on so-called liberal blogs, some of us got a little better at understanding the Obamabots' race-baiting games.
So let's get into the spirit of this logical puzzle and exchange all instances of "black" with "white."
So now we have a "white" candidate who somehow has a "black" grandmother, and when the "white" candidate's minister is caught on tape screaming God damn America! the "white" candidate says "That's okay. My 'black' grandma is a racist, too!"
(That's probably way too complicated for Obamabots to understand, but what the heck! They may be may be ludicrously inarticulate and unable to understand simple statistics, but nobody can deny that they really know how to make enemies for their candidate!
And thanks to hrebendorf for inspiring this post with his lovely comment: "Pull your head out of your arse--your brain is dying from lack of oxygen.")
September 18, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
This little game of mutatis mutandis is more fun than I expected! Let's apply it consistently to the top distinction on Obama's résumé...
"What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review?"
Decade after decade the president of the Harvard Law Review was the student with the best grades, but even though numerous minority students had been admitted to the program before Obama, none of them had ever achieved this distinction.
What to do?
If you can't raise the river, lower the bridge!
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260
"Until the 1970's the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.
That system came under attack in the 1970's and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review."
So Barack Obama became an editor and later president of the Harvard Law Review because the affirmative action mavens at Harvard got tired of waiting for minority students to earn those distinctions by attaining "the highest academic rank."
But our hypothetical "white" Obama does not benefit from affirmative action at Harvard, he is probably not president of the Law Review, because if he had a real chance at being first in his class they wouldn't have changed the old system, he is probably not an editor, he probably does not get a scholarship to the Law School, he probably does not get a scholarship to Columbia, he probably does not get a scholarship to an exclusive prep school in Hawaii, and in general he is probably not propelled into his current eminence by all the many benefits that our supposedly "racist" society has showered on Senator Barack Obama.
September 18, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know Latin but can you sing the blues?
September 18, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jacob Freeze,
Let's see what you are implying. Obama is not first in his class but is elected (not selected) by his peers to be editor of the Law Review, the highest post one could get at Harvard Law School. Obama does manage to scrape by, graduating magna cum laude. Several classmates are impressed by his leadership. No classmate has said otherwise.
Meanwhile McCain is not first in his class but is selected by Navy brass to the to highest post attainable from the Naval Academy, a slot in Naval Aviation. McCain does manage to scrape by, graduating in the bottom two thirds of one percent in his class. Bottom two thirds of one percent!
So you're implying that Obama got his post because of lower standards, but you write nothing about the Admiral's son (and Admiral's grandson) and his post? *uckin* hypocrite.
Now let's see where these lower standards get us. Obama ends up teaching constitutional law at one of the nation's finest law schools, and is offered a tenured full professorship without even the usual academic interview after he loses an election. He is widely praised by student and fellow academician alike.
Meanwhile McCain goes on to crash three jets (much more than the average, Jacob) and then gets shot down in Vietnam after a mere twenty hours of combat time. (Helicopter pilot friends of mine from Vietnam have told me they did twenty combat hours sometimes in one day.)
Lower standards? Lower standards? LOWER STANDARDS?
It must be sad to have a brain frozen with confirmation bias, no access to the real world, and no way out.
September 18, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama ends up teaching constitutional law at one of the nation's finest law schools, and is offered a tenured full professorship without even the usual academic interview after he loses an election."
This is actually yet another little mystery in the "brilliant" career of Barack Obama.
Obama has never published an article in a legal review.
And yet...
Obama is "offered a tenured full professorship without even the usual academic interview after he loses an election."
How does it happen that someone who has published nothing except a couple of inspirational made-for-Oprah bestsellers gets offered a tenured full professorship at a major research university like the University of Chicago?
Obama has never published an article in a legal review.
Obama has never tried a case in court.
But still...
Obama was offered a tenured full professorship at the University of Chicago?
Based on what?
No research. No relevant publications. No visible practice of law.
So all you Obamabots who think Obama suffered horrible persecution by our racist society, just like Michelle and Jeremiah Wright...
Maybe you can answer just one question.
Why was Obama offered a tenured full professorship at the University of Chicago, when he has never published anything in a law review, when he has never tried a case in court, and when he has never published any relevant research of any kind anywhere?
September 18, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are the prerequisites for a tenured professor at U of Chicago? As a matter of fact I think their qualifications for tenur have ALWAYS been low, whether one is black or white.
September 18, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't heard McCain reject and denounce Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church.
Did I miss that?
September 18, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
September 18, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Whites generally, and blue collar/working class whites specifically, tend to be accurately "tagged" as racist."
Now if that ain't a racist statement I don't know what is.
September 18, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, but maybe just descriptive.
September 18, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or not.
September 18, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, not just about race. But race is a big part of it. Saying that it "has to be about race" minimizes a very important and relevant truth.
September 17, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is absurd racist nonsense!
Blacks are what percentage of the population -- 12-14? If every black in the US were racist, and refused to vote for the white cndidate, would the white candidate lose her/his election!?
Nope.
But if a sufficient percentage of the majority -- whites -- are racist, and vote against that 12-14 per cent, do you think that 12-14 per cent would get "elected" to equality under the law ANYWAY?
The letter to the editor is both on point and accurate. I am fed up with the far-right white supremacist BULLSHIT tht blacks are racist, therefore it is acceptable for whites to be "racialist". It is a bullshit, bogus "argument" that would shame the utterer of it if that utterer had the least absility to reason -- and be ethical and moral.
September 18, 2008 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are some "positives" to be said about McSame? If so, why did you leave them out?
September 18, 2008 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yikes! Someone's defensive.
September 18, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Billy - I hear Josh is seriously considering renaming the site "Billy Glad Memo."
September 18, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard it was going to be called: Yentas Anonymous. Why don't you get that kid a decent hat? I have a couple of old Panamas I can send you.
September 18, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've lived in the South, in the North, in the Middle West and I have a son who now lives in Charleston, SC, where they are still fighting the Civil War. I've known firsthand racial segregation as a child and an adolescent and an adult. I've seen it in all its forms, subtle and blatant. When L.B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill, he knew that the Democrats had lost the South "forever." And look what happened: the old racist Dixiecrats (Thurman, Helms, et al) became Republicans and we went from a Solid Democratic South to a Solidly Racist Republican South. From Nixon's policy of "benign neglect" (listen to the White House tapes and all the racial slurs this bastard used). And how many times since Nixon (against poor John McCain in 2000 and in this election cycle) have the Republicans played the racial card. So, it's you who are being naive. Open your eyes!
September 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad I could get you guys together. I sure wish you could have come up with some McCain examples. I know you just cut and pasted the letter, but you might have added value by touching on the other side. Like what if Obama had served in the Navy and Congress for years, been a POW, and McCain was running for President in the middle of his first Senate term? Or what if McCain had been an affirmative action appointee to the Naval Academy and Obama had been a legacy at Harvard. You know what I mean.
September 17, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So..... Billy,
Are you saying that race plays no role, or a statistically insignificant one?
I don't know how to measure it, either, but that much different than pretending that it's not playing a role. I just know too many people who say it is, for them. And there are still parts of the country where it's a much more open and overt part of who people say they are, and how they judge others.
Wouldn't be trying to change the subject, would you?
September 17, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. I think race plays some kind of role for some people. And I think it's complicated, probably more about culture at this point than about skin color. And I think it's generational. I don't think there is the slightest chance that it will be the reason that Obama loses the election, in the highly unlikely event that happens. My point is that if you rule out any positives for McCain, you end up explaining the closeness of the race in terms of negatives for Obama.
September 18, 2008 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are you basing this on? What range of white people do you talk to about blacks (different regions, education levels, occupations, etc.), and how do you know they're being honest with you? Not everyone is like you, or raises their kids like you do. (This is obviously something that is very hard to poll.)
As for "more about culture than skin color," I think I know what you mean, and these usually can't be disentangled. A large percentage of whites still believes that blacks are genetically inferior, at least on average. They attribute cultural "inferiority" to genetics ("they're naturally lazy, violent, irresponsible, stupid, therefore they live like animals"), while perceived "bad behavior" by blacks reinforces perceptions of inferiority.
I think that whites under 30 are less racist, so I agree with you at least partially about the generational part, but think that differences above that age are minor, among living generations.
As for not costing him the election, this depends on how many people are swayed by racism. My guess (and it's just that, with some information behind it) is that Obama's race will cost him about 5 percentage points relative to a comparable white Democrat. But your statement "I don't think there is the slightest chance that it will be the reason that Obama loses the election," is either wrong or meaningless. The closer an election, the *more* explanations for its outcome. If Obama loses by one vote, and there are two people who would have voted for him if he were white, his race is *one* reason for his loss, along with the umpteen other things that would have switched two votes.
September 18, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points. I've written about the main issue for me here before. I don't think Obama needs the racism excuse. I think some people, like the author of the letter, do. Unfortunately, the real author of the post isn't here to defend it. We just have a highly recommended reprint. But it does smack of an excuse for the closeness of the race right now to me. If we're already using race as an excuse for being unable to bury McCain in the polls, what are we going to be saying if McCain wins the election? Based on your comment, I'd guess McCain has to beat Obama by 5 points or you'll chalk the loss up to racism. I think there are others here who will call it racism no matter how convincingly McCain beats Obama.
As far as the kids go, spend some time watching what they watch on TV. That's the future of "race relations" in America. I hate Disney, but I never worry about my daughter learning racial prejudice from it. I live in one of the most racially divided communities in America, and I see no evidence in the activities she particpates in or at her school where I volunteer that race is an issue with the third graders. When Hillary Clinton conceded, my daughter cried for 10 minutes and then became a devout Obamanaut. Her concern is I won't work as hard for Obama as I did for Clinton. How could I not?
September 18, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only individuals who have not been subjected to racism ever describe it as an excuse. In fact, the corollary for that description tends to be white entitlement. Individuals who enjoy all the privileges of white entitlement beleive that racism is an excuse.
September 18, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The original point of this post has been made several times before(the racism angle is kinda new though). I think it's totally valid to crave a counterpoint.
I was with you on the first few questions which were literal role reversals, like the original premise of this post. But I notice you can't resist getting a little passive-aggressive dig in at happy Obama supporters and switched the last question to a dishonest frame(in a Clintonesque/Rovian fashion BTW) to imply that Obama had been accepted to Harvard based on affirmative action.
Aside from that, the original premise of the post is kind of silly. The answer to every question posed is that whatever the democrats have sucks, and whatever the republicans have is great. The GOP is not going after Obama because of his race(they may USE race to meet their ends - that's different), it's about making their candidate look good while making the other one look bad. That's it - nothing else.
September 17, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those who USE race to achieve their ends are pandering to RACISTS and therefore ARE racist THEMSELVES. By pandering to racists they are exploiting -- AND PERPETUATING -- racism.
Stop making excuses for YOUR rationalizations about YOUR racism.
Think about it:
EVERY culture on the planet is racist. Therefore, EVERYONE who is born into one of those cultures is inculcated with racism BEFORE s/he knows to reject it.
That means it is a GIVEN that EVERYONE is racist.
The question, then, is NOT "Am I racist?" -- it's a given -- but, "What am I going to do about it?
The obstacle to changing the status quo on that point is the self-deception, "I'm not racist!"
September 18, 2008 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a shame. But when does it happen? My daughter is 9 now and she still thinks the only difference between people is skin color and language. It would be too long-winded to explain, but I know for a fact that the only thing "black" means to her is dark skin.
September 18, 2008 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
What makes you think he wasn't?
September 18, 2008 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have to answer that. The real point is you and I may have different takes on affirmative action. I believe in it, although, like Obama, I think we may be past basing it on race. Income may be a much more effective target now. Maybe it always was.
September 18, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Based on the fact that he had been highly accomplished both in his undergrad work and his first professional gig in Chicago, anyone with an ounce of common sense would see he got in on his own merits.
That he went on to graduate at the top of his class only reinforces that assumption.
To imply that affirmative action was the reason Barack went to Harvard is intellectually dishonest, illogical based on th evidence and, yes, more than a tad racist.
Unless you are trying to ironic, then, great job!
September 18, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain would have never gotten in the Naval Academy unless he was the scion of admirals. Obama wasn't an affirmative action admission to Harvard, he had graduate with honors as an undergrad and was an accomplished activist by the time he applied for law school. McCain graduated at the bottom of his Naval Academy Class and Obama graduated magna cum laude and president of the law review. There is simply no comparison.
September 18, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, do you have any evidence that McCain was NOT an affirmative action admission the Annapolis?
Affirmative action for the devil-may-care sons and grandsons of admirals, I should point out.
If his grades at the Naval Academy are any indicator of past results, his high school grades would have disqualified him on the first cut.
September 18, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Affrimative action for whites was called 'legacy'.
McCain was a legacy admission to Navy Academy and Bush was a legacy admission to Yale and Harvard.
September 18, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
.Affrimative action for whites was called 'legacy'.
McCain was a legacy admission to Navy Academy and Bush was a legacy admission to Yale and Harvard
September 18, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the point to my comment. Legacy cancels out affirmative action.
September 18, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd
September 17, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one here denies racism. And there will be a portion of voters who will not vote for a black man--that number unknown. A greater opportunity in action and thought is that Obama is ready to take race out of the equation, whatever the reality. The idea of affirmative action is that someday it ends. That day won't be a perfect. And if you listen to OBama carefully, he giving up the notion of victimhood as part of the end process.
This is generational now. And we have a generation that has come of age without the old sense of racial division. It's not perfect. What is? But we're getting to the tipping point. And I agree that changing the affirmative action model to economic need is long overdue.
September 18, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. Make that: "That day won't be a perfect one." --"And if you listen to Obama carefully, he sees giving up the notion of victimhood as part of the end process."
September 18, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, both times.
September 18, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's always interesting to discover people's attitudes toward affirmative action. Apparently, even in the Progressive blogosphere it's dogma for some that anyone who benefitted from affirmative action is somehow second rate. How else to explain the fact that it's such a red flag? Amusing, but sad.
September 18, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see your position here as the one closest to Obama's.
September 18, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's really interesting, Cypher, is how detached from the real world some Republicans are. Naturally, being who they are, they believe affirmative action equals second rate. But then they don't get that people like McCain get into the Naval Academy, not because they are qualified, but because their fathers went to the Naval Academy. Legacy. Amusing but sad.
September 18, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is also strange, blue man, is that when Obama says he could not have done what he's done without the Civil Rights movement, some people don't seem to understand what he means. Fascinating. The sooner these people limp off to the graveyard of ignorance and failed politics the better.
September 18, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the reasons Obama is convincing on race is that he knows and understands the real history of the Civil Rights Movement, not as mere facts or mythology but as a movement that was inspirational, revolutionary and pragmatic. An interesting discussion that you and I touched upon once is would Obama have gone to place like Mississippi as an organizer. Does it even matter.
Interesting also to think about those who could have gone, didn't, but claim more of it in their persona than they should.
Bravery comes in many guises. The bravest of the presidents and possible presidents in the second half of the last century was RFK--at least for me. But he was a statesman in the old sense.
I still believe that understanding history is a basic prerequisite for a president. Obama has it. The other guy doesn't.
September 18, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose it has nothing to do with the way you use affirmative action to imply a second-rate candidate? Comparing Barack getting into Harvard with McCain getting into the Naval Academy as being equal is the red flag, not that affirmative action promotes second-rate applicants over more qualified ones. You are the master of the red herring.
September 18, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy:
You question why suggesting someone benefited from affirmative action is such a red flag on pregressive blogs. It is not because we feel that such folks are per se second rate. It is because much of the white world assumes that any black person who has achieved something must have benefited from affirmative action and not gotten there on his or her own merits; i.e., the person nis second rate but got special treatment. My African American wife graduated magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa from the University of California, Berkeley, not a shabby institution. Nevertheless, often when that fact arises in conversation with white people, they make some comment that strongly implies they believe she must have gotten into Berkeley through affirmative action (and then probably majored in basket-weaving); Of course, she didn't get in through afdfirmative action, because Ward Connerly saw to it that by the time she applied, the UC admissions department was prohibited from taking race into account. But that doesn't stop white folks from assuming that's how she got in. That's why it is such a red flag.
September 18, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jthdane,
One other reason folks assume that affirmative action is synonymous with blacks is that the political right uses affirmative action to promote incompetence. If we look at how they promote people like Brownie, and Meirs as well as Palin into positions then point to affirmative action as a justification for their actions. The GOP perpetuates the unqualified/incompetence perception by how they themselves use affirmative action. It is deliberate and intentional. Just as the words themselves connote 'unqualified black'.
What I find so irksome is how no one at any time talks about how affirmative action has little or nothing to do with race, but rather is defined as access to opportunities for GROUPS traditional denied on the basis of gender or race.
So, the operative terms are traditional denied and access. Yet, the only thing that is ever focused on is race!
Despite every single American being able to look around their place of work and notice that people of color are still a minority while females make up more than half of the employees!
September 18, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
jthdane, I appreciate the correction. It was insensitive of me to play with concepts like affirmative action and legacy. I apologize. And I admit I knew when I did it I would evoke a response from some people around here. However, I meant no disrespect to your wife, or, in fact, to anyone who, unlike your wife, might have benefited from affirmative action. Maybe I'm in denial about the extent of racism in America. I admit I would not know how to explain to my daughter that a black man couldn't be elected President.
September 18, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's take the position here that there are no racists among us. I know that Glad isn't a racist. The deeper issue is this: Do Progressives take naive positions too often that absolve them from critical thinking? I welcome the discussion. The Left is masterful at losing important fights by not thinking critically beyond what is reflexive, obvious and outdated.
September 18, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see progressives as the critical thinkers in the middles, to the left and right, while the fringes are the ones that seem naive and make wild assumptions based on little evidence or an illogical reading of the data.
They also seem the least willing to compromise or see it from the other side's point of view. To my way of thinking, to get anything done, we need to mitigate the impact of the fringes on the left and right, while charting a course that is more true north.
I am not sure how long that will take, but believe we are seeing the start of it this year.
September 18, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you in the middle at this particular juncture in American history.
September 18, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do Progressives take naive positions too often that absolve them from critical thinking? I welcome the discussion. The Left is masterful at losing important fights by not thinking critically beyond what is reflexive, obvious and outdated.
Apparently some do. Writing off entire voting blocks of people due to racism seems a little reflexive to me. Surely it has nothing to do with what I think has and remains Obama's worst gaffe this entire campaign - the bitter/cling remarks. Nope. It's the entire block of voters not voting for him. But only in certain places, where I saw a movie once and they were racist. Did anyone call the voters in California racist who went Hillary?
Critical thought, in my book, takes in everything. Our experiences, what we've seen - most people get that. What gets left out too often is reflection and reasoning. Without all, one is left with a shallow understanding. It requires constantly questioning our own assumptions and those of our culture.
Education is part of the problem. Rote learning instead of critical thought. You think our government wants a nation of critical thinkers though? Imagine it for a second. We could be living in world where Lehman didn't collapse, Fannie and Freddie were riding high, our kids and brothers and sisters weren't dying in a foreign occupation, and we most certainly wouldn't have Bush in office. Surreal.
September 18, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a delicate issue to describe a demographic. And its easily abused without thought. How would you describe Reagan Democrats? Are all of the demographic terms off-base? Soccer moms, upscale wine drinkers (did I make that one up?) --I'm with you on this, but looking for a bit more info.
September 18, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a delicate issue to describe a demographic. And its easily abused without thought. How would you describe Reagan Democrats? Are all of the demographic terms off-base? Soccer moms, upscale wine drinkers (did I make that one up?) --I'm with you on this, but looking for a bit more info.
I'm not sure I think it's actually possible to describe an entire demographic accurately at all. To do so, one must resort to faulty generalizations made from a sample extending to the whole. Particularly when it comes to beliefs. Perhaps it is more possible to make ideological generalizations on groups like "Reagan Democrats." I'd say they're more conservative Democrats, on issues like abortion or gun rights and possibly immigration. Maybe more liberal on unions and trade. Even that's faulty though.
Soccer moms, I don't think, can be described at all with generalizations. Whether it's literal as in mother of a soccer player, or what I think it's usually used for, as in stay-at-home Moms, covers such a wide and diverse swath of people. Maybe the only way to accurately describe a "demographic" is by the actual label that splits them into those demographics in the first place - college educated, or by gender, and so on.
It is possible to discuss the mindset of some people within certain demographics, I think, so long as people don't fall into the trap of part = whole. I thought we did a pretty good job on that West Virginia thread way back when - folklore and fear and prejudice nuance and all that.
If you go down to an individual level, and try to describe yourself, you realize you fit into these various demographic stereotypes at various times. My brother wrote this back during the primaries:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08097/870666-35.stm
I think it captures my point here.
September 18, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. I don't mean to keep reposting your thoughts. I just put them in my comment box to see what I was responding to and keep forgetting to delete them before I hit submit. Also like nine million types from me today. It's one of those days, apparently.
September 18, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad, Cypher, Jacob Freeze and kgb999,
Here's a question for you:
How do you define "white privilege"?
September 18, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
For me, it's water to a fish. I can't even imagine how hard it would be for someone not "white" to have the life I've had. My experience inside the fishbowl hasn't been without hardship, but I'm sure it's nothing compared to how hard things are outside the bowl.
September 18, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now I have a question for you, Goldspinner. What is your definition of "selective perception?"
September 18, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phd.
September 18, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she drove by, took a shot, and left.
September 18, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
A "pic-by" in elevated C-Speak, then.
September 18, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe she's gone off to google "fishbowl."
September 18, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Historically, the oppression of people of color by whites and in the last millennium the whites have been Europeans. It's not the only kind of racial oppression--witness the racial aspect to Japan's historic oppression of other races.
September 18, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama would be no where without the black vote and the sympathy vote from the bleeding heart liberals, but the majority of America knows he is an empty suit who has no direction, no track record and a dismal Senate rating, we are in hard times, we do not have time to make Obama's personal goals of Affirmative Action become reality!
America is demanding change, Obama can't even vote on over 140 different measures, the President has to take a position, even an unpopular one!
The turmoil in the capital markets is bad news and is forcing each candidate to reassess their current pronouncements on the economy. So, let’s ask some questions. Of the two candidates for President, who got the most money from the two financial giants now in the news–Lehman Brothers and AIG?
McCain received $117,500 from Lehman Bros.
Obama received $370,524 from Lehman Bros.
How about AIG?
John McCain got $36,875 from AIG
Barack Obama raked in $75,899 (+205%)
Got that? Barack Obama, the guy who supposedly is not beholden to special interests, took three times as much money from Lehman Brothers and more than twice as much from AIG.
Gee, and who did the now Government financed mortgage broker Fannie Mae give its money to when it wanted to influence a politician?
OpenSecrets lists the top three politicians in which FNMA “invested” from 1989 to 2008.
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008Name Office State Party Grand Total
Dodd, Christopher S CT D $165,400
Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 ($6000 came from the PAC)
Kerry, John S MA D $111,000
What about McCain?
The folks at Fannie Mae didn’t show him a lot of love. According to Open Secrets:
McCain, John S AZ R $21,550 (all from individuals).
Oh yeah, and who tabbed the former head of Fannie Mae to head up his Vice Presidential search team? OBAMA, that’s who. Back in May Barack turned to Jim Johnson, former CEO of Fannie Mae.
When it came time for a tough decision who did Barack turn to? A former community organizer per chance? Hell no! He went with the inside the beltway uber lobbyist.”
THE last thing this country needs is another SELF CENTERED politician which is what Obama is!
September 18, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me say the word that your not saying but are implying.... uppity. That's what you mean, right?
September 18, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're obviously being quite selective in your figures. You're using one time frame for Obama (1998-2008) and a different, unspecified time frame for McCain. Obama has not taken any PAC money during his presidential campaign (although he did take some during his senatorial campaign 4 years ago).
Why don't you post your source, or are you afraid of showing your dishonesty? (That seems to be a Republican theme.)
September 18, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus. Can't we at least get a McCainiac we can argue with? I'm not into cut-and-paste wars.
September 18, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post guys, and I would agree for the most part with what Billy and the blue guy have said about race and its affects on this election. Obviously it plays some role in this election and I fervently believe mush of it is a generational divide rather than simply and American issue.
Hey Pretjene, it seems that you like me get to read all of the rights talking points about Obama. Man is must make you really mad hearing all the things that the right spoon feeds you. Jim Johnson was never one of Obama's senior campaing advisors in regards to the economy, he was simply tapped as one of a three person committee to search for a VP candidate and an unpaid one at that. When his position was revealed, having formerly been a Chairman of Fannie Mae, but like a person with real integrity he was asked to step down which he did.
September 18, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Kelvin LaFond, I will tell you how Racism works. In the most open example of Racism in recent history, 95% of Blacks are voting for Oilbama, who voted FOR the Bush Cheney Energy Bill, because he is Black. If 95% of White people voted for McCain, Oilbamabots would be screaming their heads off about how Racist White people are.
September 18, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
90% of blacks have voted for Democrats for decades. It has nothing to do with the voters being racist. It has to do with the republican party being racist. What reason would a black person have to vote for a republican, the party of Jesse Helms?
Did you see today who is leading the republican drive for diversity? George "macaca" Allen. Do you really question the racism of black voters and not the racism of the republican party? Wake up!
September 18, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oilbama. How very innovative of you.
September 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The New Hampshire numbers tell all:
In the Senate race, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen polling at 52% to John Sununu's 40%.
For the governorship, Democrat Lynch is at 62% to Kenney's 31%.
For the President of the United States, Republican McCain at 48% to Obama's 45%.
September 18, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, not all, but it's certainly suggestive, isn't it?
It might be more due to the NRA than the KKK, though. I've a number of friends who moved from MA to NH, so they could get and keep their "artillery".
September 18, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, wait - is your avatar Lenny?
September 18, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jacob re:
"But our hypothetical "white" Obama does not benefit from affirmative action at Harvard, he is probably not president of the Law Review, because if he had a real chance at being first in his class they wouldn't have changed the old system, he is probably not an editor, he probably does not get a scholarship to the Law School, he probably does not get a scholarship to Columbia, he probably does not get a scholarship to an exclusive prep school in Hawaii, and in general he is probably not propelled into his current eminence by all the many benefits that our supposedly "racist" society has showered on Senator Barack Obama"
--------
The real white McCain and Bush, however did get to go to the naval academy and Yale though because the bar was lowered for them. The real white McCain and Bush did have their parents legacy and money to go to Andover and Navy prep. Because the real white McCain's grandfather and Prescott Bush had rights as whites that were denied non-whites so that their progeny could flourish while non-whites children were held back and kept in poverty without access to schools or the corridors of power.
Yes, the racist society propelled whites only up the ladder and now you want to whine because other non-whites are now afforded those same lowering of the bar and government assists that the mcCains and Bushes enjoyed?
That is the racism of it all...you do not consider legacy affirmative action despite the government being the one to make white legacy possible by the institutionalized laws that systematically kept non-whites out.
In other words, whites could not compete with non-whites. So they scammed the system and tilted the playing field for whites to benefit. Whites are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action in this country.
But you don't know that? Why? Because you want to insist that affirmative action is for blacks when they biggest group to benefit from affirmative action are folks like Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina, Hillary Clinton, MegWhitman and Geralidine 'archiebunker' Ferraro.
September 18, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carly who?
September 18, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
JNagarya:
You do realize, I'm sure, that the word prejudice means "pre-judged"? In other words, you are deciding something before actually knowing? I'm going out on a limb here and assuming you have not personally discussed race with enough "whites" or "blue collar/working class whites" to tag them with any sort of "generally" descriptives. In other words, you are pre-judging an entire set of people without having the information to back up such a claim.
Here's the moral of the story: Ill-evidenced Generalizations bad.
September 18, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many of you are missing the point of Affirmative Action programs. They were not to lower the bar, but to give people who had been historically excluded (often by legislative mandate, sometimes by social/cultural prejudice) access to opportunities denied since the inception of this country. There is an historical context here, and that history is not an ancient one. Its impact is on-going. The legacy of this history is among the things that constitute 'white privilege'. Not only does it affect the accumulated wealth of families and communities over generations, but the social networks creating advantage one has access to.
It’s true, these factors are not 100% governed by race. There are poorly connected whites, with no history of generational access or wealth. However, given this nations past of slavery, Jim Crow, black disenfranchisement, etc, these factors have an extreme 'disparate impact' on black communities, and other communities of color. These disadvantages exist still, to this very day.
The fact that young whites under the age of thirty are less likely to harbor racist attitudes has no real bearing on this reality. It's a wonderful thing, but it doesn’t erase 300 years of history, or the impact that history has on many aspects of people's lives today.
When Barak is elected in November (and I believe he will be elected) it will be a glorious, and extremely meaningful milestone for America. But it won’t magically erase the impact of 200 plus years of being bared from owning property, or diminish the legacy of being legally counted as 3/5th s of a person. These factors (along with so, so many others) unfairly advantaged/enriched some, while disadvantaging/impoverishing others, and don’t fool yourselves, their impact is still felt today. As meager, and imperfect a tool as it has been, that’s what Affirmative Action was designed to try and counter. Let’s not get it twisted!
To illuminate this, there’s a book I highly recommend titled 'Slavery by Another Name' by the Atlanta Bureau Chief of the Wall Street Journal, Douglas A. Blackmon. It details what the author calls the ‘neoslavery system’ prosecuted after the Civil War through WW II. Check it out!
Peace
September 18, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You refer to Obama being offered a "tenured full professorship" over and over. Please cite the source for this supposed offer. According to factcheck.org, quoting a statement from the University of Chicago law school, "Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position." So tenure-*track,* not "tenured," and "full-*time*," not "full professorship." A "tenure-track" position generally required 5-7 years of work before being granted tenure -- presumably, he would have used this opportunity to do academic writing. Though this position was offered, Obama did not accept -- presumably because he did not want to become a full-time academic.
Many law professors and lecturers start with practical rather than academic experience -- so there really is nothing unusual for Obama to be offered this position.
In any case, at the time that Obama was teaching at the Unversity of Chicago, he was simultaneously of-counsel to Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a civil rights law firm, and a serving member of the Illinois state senate. He apparently decided to continue his political career.
September 18, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if Condolezza Rice were John McCain's running mate?
What would "racism" do to the race then?
What would "the black vote" do then, huh?
Pssst: Condi's got as many "elite" bonafides as Obama or Michelle, more black parents than Obama, and some actual experience with Jim Crow as a kid. Instead we saw McCain (adoptive father of a Bangladeshi daughter with very dark skin, I might add) pick a populist hockey mom who don't know nothing bout no vice-presidenting but knows she could do it as good as anyone else sure as shootin.
The letter to the editor writer is living in 1975 and so are lots of commenters on this thread. I once again regret wasting time reading any threads to do with race on this site. And once again renew my broken vow that whenever I see the topic raised here to go over and see what Ta-Nehisi Coates has to say, as he blogs in the present. Criminy, even Bob Herbert would shake his head on some of the old timey liberal white noblesse oblige stuff being argued here.
September 18, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Y'all know Obama as shown himself to be quite receptive to the idea that it's time for affirmative action to move more to being more class-based than race based, doncha?
Obama nonetheless suggested that his own daughters, who've had "a pretty good deal," might not be deserving of special treatment. More here.
September 18, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.P.S. Condi is a lesbian. What would Bob Herbert say about that?
September 18, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah. I'm actually not so sure of that, she's got a lot of the good Daddy's girl/old maid thing that we of Catholic heritage know so well. (And also some of the dominiatrix thing that also goes along with that. :-))
Hey, along the same lines I found it interesting that Coates has a thing for her just like you have for Palin:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-07-22/news/rice-rice-baby/
He's got a link to that article on his greatest hits list on his blog, so even though it's 5 years old, it's not something he's ashamed he wrote.
September 18, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
She was even better in the early '90s. He's lucky he didn't run into her then. He's really a great writer, isn't he? I have zero cred to say it, but I've always thought instead of lecturing black men, Obama should be lecturing white women.
September 18, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Condi, loves football players. She is known to have dated Gene Washington, former head of NFL operations for the past 5 years.Gene often is Condi's guest at state dinners. Many suspect as soon as she finishes this term theyw will marry.
September 19, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Art appraiser
Your suggestion that McCain picking Condi Rice as his running mate could have nullified Barack’s support in the Black community is ill founded. It's based on the ignorant refrain I often hear from 'some' Whites that Barack is favored by Blacks only because he is African American.
Clearly, you must not know very many Black folks. Clarence Thomas is Black too! So is Allen Keyes! I think if you asked a cross section of African Americans, you might find Condi's reputation is not too much better than theirs.
Barack is appealing to the majority of African Americans for the same cluster of reasons he's popular among other demographics, such as young people, or better educated voters. A more interesting question would be; ‘What would the selection of Condi as McCain's running mate do to his support among evangelicals, and hard right Republican?’ Even with her 'slavish' dedication to George Bush, methinks this wouldn't be enough to make them comfortable.
September 18, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she weren't a lesbian, they'd be ecstatic and Obama would have to fight for his black church organizations, too. Isn't her father a minister? Doesn't she sing and play piano at white house services? They'd love her. No one who remembers the Condi Rice of the GHW Bush administration wants to go up against that woman.
September 18, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your suggestion that McCain picking Condi Rice as his running mate could have nullified Barack’s support in the Black community is ill founded.
Gah! I wasn't suggesting that, rather, just the opposite! I'm pointing out how it's not about all those old race canards. Geez you taking that way is actually a great example of how unsophisticated discussions about race are on this site for the most part, except for a couple of bloggers who rarely get recommended because their stuff goes over so many heads.
September 18, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
You're joking, right?
September 18, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mainly. But I did like her when she was working for GHW Bush.
September 18, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy-boy,
Unlike you, I have a life and aren't glued to a keyboard blogging all day. You seem to have some sort of animus towards black women. Care to explain why? Is it because we're black, because we're women, or both?
September 21, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink