Racism is a Bigger Problem than Anti-Racism
Ta-Nehisi Coates has an important post here that I think could probably use an “amen” from a white person. It’s absurd how totally disproportionate the volume of public concern is about black people “playing the race card” or about “political correctness” stifling someone or other to the volume of public concern about actual racism.
Just yesterday we had Byron York saying that black people’s opinion shouldn’t count when tallying up how popular someone is and, on a sillier note, this bizarre CNN segment on Obama’s “swagga”. Now we’ve still come a long way from when the local sheriff’s deputy would put a mask on during his off-shift on burn your house down for trying to register to vote. But this stuff is no good. And it’d be nice if some of the conservatives who like to rant and rave about how put upon white people are these days would take notice of this kind of BS on CNN or within their own ranks when it comes to things like York’s column.
127 Responses to “Racism is a Bigger Problem than Anti-Racism”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 30th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Nate Silver’s findings on racism as a factor in the election are well worth watching in his recent TED speech:
http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2009/04/race-and-2008-race.html
The summary version – yes, racism was a big factor in some states. But Nate is comforted by the fact that as a factor its appearance was predictable and identifiable – and therefore, he argues, there are ways we can design to address it.
But mass media tolerance for this BS doesn’t help.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
I’m not one to defend Byron York, but it seems like you are being a bit harsh on him, imprecise though his language certainly was.
This is what he said: “his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.”
Now rather than claiming that African-Americans’ opinions “shouldn’t count,” isn’t it possible that York was merely suggesting that Obama’s popularity amongst at least some African-Americans is based on something other than their agreement with his policy positions?
April 30th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Racism is the only explanation for McCain’s Pennsylvania strategy-hope that rural Pennsylvania would end up like the rest of Appalachia.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Jack please explain how the idea that Blacks are irrational makes this less offensive?
April 30th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
I’m not one to defend Byron York, but it seems like you are being a bit harsh on him, imprecise though his language certainly was.
This is what he said: “his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.”
Now rather than claiming that African-Americans’ opinions “shouldn’t count,” isn’t it possible that York was merely suggesting that Obama’s popularity amongst at least some African-Americans is based on something other than their agreement with his policy positions?
Yeah, and? No one does this kind of “analysis” on any other group’s support for a politician or party. Ever. That’s why it’s racist.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
For example, can anyone recall ever reading a piece about how George Bush’s personal popularity among white, Southern Americans was making some of his policy positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually were?
I sure don’t.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Hi Rob, I don’t think York was suggesting that Blacks are irrational and I know that I certainly wasn’t. There are other rational reasons a group, or elements within a group, may support a member of that group that are perfectly rational yet not based on policy agreement. And even if this is not the true in the case of Blacks’ support for Obama, suggesting the possibility isn’t inherently racist. At least I don’t think so.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
how totally disproportionate the volume of public concern is about black people “playing the race card” or about “political correctness” stifling someone or other to the volume of public concern about actual racism
Straw Man Alert!
The volume of public concern about actual racism far, FAR exceeds the volume of public concern about political correctness, etc. You’d have to be blind to reality or disingenuous to think otherwise.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
The CNN thing is more racial performance-art stupidity (Do you, Yglesias, reserve the right to proclaim every African-American who contributed to it a minstrel, Uncle Tom, house servant or whatever other epithet many of the Enlightened and Melanin Defficient consider themselves privileged to dispense?) as opposed to the wrong (easily the best word in this case) racism of Byron York.
I would also suggest a distinction between racism as ideology (Byron York writing nonsense) which most of them (duh, I’m white) already knew and, on the other hand, practical racism, (a doctor not treating an African-American because he hates “negroes as a class”).
The former is not harmful on its own except by convincing more African-Americans that yes, racism still exists (and also by giving some cultural credibility for racism to continue to exist), which is something the vast majority of African-Americans already knew. The same distinction could be made for concerns about “playing the race card.” Then we will see which is issue is more important. (Hint: It’s still racism that is the bigger problem.)
April 30th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
The volume of public concern about actual racism far, FAR exceeds the volume of public concern about political correctness, etc.
And appropriately so, BTW.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Hi Duvall,
Yours is a good point. I’d submit however that there was plenty of analysis in the run up the election talking about the Bradly Effect and the possibility of some white voters not supporting Obama simply because he is Black.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Hello Al,
Here is a though experiment.
Volume of public concern over racism/Volume of public concern over political correctness= 5/1
Seriousness of problems of racism/Seriousness of problems over political correctness = 10/1
According to the scenario I described (which does not pretend to describe exactly reality), the volume of public concern for political correctness is still disproportionate. Compared to what? Compared to the actual seriousness of these issues, which is what should decide the coverage in the first place. Your “Straw Man Alert” was well-placed, but not in the way you think.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Yeah, and? No one does this kind of “analysis” on any other group’s support for a politician or party. Ever. That’s why it’s racist.
While I agree with your overall point, this isn’t quite true. People often discussed Bush’s support among Christian evangelicals as stemming from the perception that he was “one of them.” The difference is that this was usually included in a discussion of the issues important to evangelicals, and the fact that this support was based in part in identity was not felt to in any way delegitimize it.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
York’s post on the response to his column seems to me to continue to miss the point. He still continues to assume that black opinions are aberrational and distorting the numbers of the group upward; when the numbers as presented could as easily have been framed as a question of why the disproportionately negative numbers from whites were distorting the overall numbers downward.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Yeah, and? No one does this kind of “analysis” on any other group’s support for a politician or party. Ever.
Really? I remember one Matthew Yglesias doing this kind of “anaysis” on Hillary Clinton’s support among whites. So your premise seems to be false.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Only the most vehement of white supremacists will admit to being racist, yet somehow the effects of racism can be seen everywhere around us. I don’t know when being called a racist became worse than actually being a racist, but it certainly is the case now. I have a pretty low threshold for thinking that someone is a racist, unlike Coates in his post who was bending over backward to give people the benefit of the doubt. If you complain about why Chris Rock gets to call someone a nigger, but you don’t, you are a racist. If you complain about political correctness and complain about people pulling the race card (except when Burris did it), you are a racist. If you think cops are generally good and people who have difficulty with them are doing something wrong, you are a racist.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Bryce, very good point.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
All the coverage I read on the so-called Bradley Effect said it was bunk.
Can’t speak for what was on the idiot box.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Yes, but this is a bit of a strawman, too. It’s not that, across all civil discourse, there’s more concern about political correctness or racism against whites; it’s that in many conservatives circles this is the case.
When the subject of racism comes up, and some white person grouses about how he can’t tell “off-color” jokes at work anymore, or about how racist Obama’s pastor is, or that Obama won because his fellow blacks voted for him only because he was black (or some whites voted for him only because he was black), that’s a kind of subtle (perhaps often inadvertent) racism because it’s remarkably ignorant of the reality of white privilege. It’s exactly like some wealthy, white kid complaining that a poor, black kid got a scholarship or college placement for being black. It’s repugnantly self-involved, privileged, and self-pitying.
These kinds of complaints/observations should be mocked and attacked because those making them deserve public shaming. Conservatives like shame, right? When such people start actually being shamed by the response to their behavior, they’ll start learning something.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
All the coverage I read on the so-called Bradley Effect said it was bunk.
You must not read the blogging of a popular blogger named Matthew Yglesias. He said that Hillary won the Ohio primary due to white racist voters.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
It sounds like York really meant
“his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more broadly popular than they actually are.”
which I would have a hard time seeing as offensive, although it still seems disingenuous.
But the words he did write mean something completely different. So this defense seems to basically rest on the claim that he is just a bad writer.
Although that seems to be a common defense for right-wingers these days — they’re not evil, they’re just unbelievably incompetent.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
You must not be reading, period. The demographic in question is a hell of a lot more specific than “white.” It was the ability of Obama to expand Democratic support beyond the uneducated rust belt that attracted me to his candidacy in the first place. He expoited all the demographic strengths of the left and all the weaknesses of the right.
Hope you like it.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Keith,
Completely concede the point that racism is more of a concern than political correctness.
That said, it is not “self-involved, privileged, and self-pitying” for a white kid to resent that a black kid got a college placement “because he is black.” Opposition to racial preferences is not self-involved or racist.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Strange. I can’t find a single cite to support Al’s assertion that “[Yglesias] said that Hillary won the Ohio primary due to white racist voters.”
I think Al was more effective when he was a driveby. Lately, he just sticks around to be humiliated.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I think he called it churlish for lack of a better word.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
The Bradley effect concerns not whether racism influences the vote, but rather whether racism influences the vote minus the polls.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Of course, it requires completely ignoring the advantages of white privilege to complain. The white child who has tons of advantages, but wants to point out and complain about one particular advantage that a black person has received is most certainly self-pitying.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Amen
April 30th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Indeed, you are correct. It can also stem from the kind of ignorance that should debar one from college study, were it not for the privileged status of objective tests.
Another dumb baseball cap not in the classroom = a good thing.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Saying that Barack Obama is not “actually” popular because he is supported among African-Americans beyond what would seem to have been the case had his mother had a child by one of Barack Senior’s fair-skinned sociology classmates: Racism (a problem)
Saying that Barack Obama is popular because he is widely supported among African-Americans beyond what would seem to have been the case had his mother had a child by one of Barack Senior’s fair-skinned sociology classmates: Truth
Saying that saying that Barack Obama is popular because he is widely supported among African-Americans beyond what would seem to have been the case had his mother had a child by one of Barack Senior’s fair-skinned sociology classmates: Political correctness (Not a problem but also not truth)
Furthermore I would say that it is “self-involved, privileged and self-pitying” for a white to resent the fact that an African-American who may or may not be more qualified than he or she (in the world where the white has benefited from white privilege and the African-American has not, not in some theoretical world of natural abilities competing with equal opportunity) gets certain preferences. It is racist if it is accompanied with the belief that White McPrivilege’s Hypothetical Competitor is less capable of being successful with the scholarship because of the Fact of Blackness or that White McPrivilege does not like Hypothetical Competitor because of his blackness which (in W McP’s fantasy world) makes him more attractive for the scholarship than any of the privileges which contributed to WMcP’s ability to be (in his or her mind at least) a competitive applicant.
It is not racist to wonder why Chris Rock can say the n-word and a white person should not in those same contexts. It is simple-minded. It is not racist to have sympathy with police and hostility to the accused. It is naive. It is not racist to have guarded sympathy with police and cautious hostility to the activities of the accused. It is sanity.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
The other problem with York’s column is the sloppy analysis. Polls show that Obama receives comparable support among black voters as other Democrats – his share of the black vote was 4% greater than Kerry’s, just as his share of the total vote was 4% greater than Kerry’s. Since Obama’s support among blacks is typical for a Democrat, the idea that Obama is getting extra support because he’s black is an illusion.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Are you refering to the mocking of the claims that Hillary would be the better candidate because she did better with whites, even though she lost the primary?
April 30th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Of course, it requires completely ignoring the advantages of white privilege to complain. The white child who has tons of advantages, but wants to point out and complain about one particular advantage that a black person has received is most certainly self-pitying.
And what about the Jews? They receive better deals from lenders and more spots in top universities. Hell, 50% of Jewish males are college graduates, compared to 24% of the population as a whole, which means that the gentiles are getting screwed! Plus, they are WAY OVERREPRESENTED in entertainment and media and just yesterday I overheard a guy with a yarmulke on complaining that he wasn’t allowed to use the term “honky!”
April 30th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
bperk,
Agree that resenting one’s failure to get something is self-pitying, regardless of cause.
Maintain, however, that opposition to racial preferences is not racist. You could argue that racial preferences are good social policy, but I think it is wrong to consider those who oppose them racist.
jm,
One can compensate for economic disadvantage in college admissions in ways that do not consider race. I, for one, would find such strategies more acceptable. For what its worth.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Jeebus. You people are a bunch of newbies.
Matthew wrote that the “crucial racist vote” “seems to have put Hillary Clinton over the top” in Ohio.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Of course, we periodically hear the arguement that the legitimacy of all Democrats is questionable because of disproportionate support from blacks. You know, if they can’t get a majority of regular people, using black votes to get over the top is unfair. I think Michael Barone trotted that one out a few years ago.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I agree. Bellyaching that a black person got your spot based on race is racist. Being principally opposed to racial preferences is not. I’m opposed to racial preferences in college admissions because I think it is bad policy when colleges should be targeting disadvantaged students and schools. Obama’s kids should not get the benefit of a preference over kids who are white and poor.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
bperk, Sounds good to me.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Obama’s kids should not get the benefit of a preference over kids who are white and poor.
Obama’s kids would be getting the benefit of a preference even if they were lily white Boston Brahmins. Which ties in to your larger point about class.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
You must not read the blogging of a popular blogger named Matthew Yglesias. He said that Hillary won the Ohio primary due to white racist voters.
Matthew wrote that the “crucial racist vote” “seems to have put Hillary Clinton over the top” in Ohio.
Al, darling…do you actually know what the Bradley effect is? Because it most certainly is not racist white people not voting for a black man. It’s racist white people telling pollsters they’re voting for a black man and then not actually doing it in the secrecy of the voting booth.
Pretty much all the literature out there, including what Matt wrote, indicated that racist white people who wouldn’t vote for Obama had absolutely no problem telling pollsters that, and that voting patterns were not noticably different from polls. And in fact you linked exit polls where voters specifically admitted race was a factor in their vote. Which is the exact opposite of the Bradley Effect in which they won’t admit that.
So it’s both true that racist whites helped Hillary win in Ohio and that the Bradley Effect did not exist in Ohio (or anywhere).
April 30th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Al: Yes he did, but the crucial difference is that he wasn’t saying that Hillary Clinton wasn’t “really” popular because of racists swinging the vote. Hillary Clinton was really popular, and Obama is really popular. The whole problem here is that Byron York is saying that black people’s opinions don’t matter (although I’m inclined to believe he simply misspoke, and he doesn’t really believe this).
April 30th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Hello bperk and Jack,
Agreeing isn’t how the blogosphere works (just kidding! It’s delightful!), but I would like to say the line between belly-aching and principled opposition is hard to define.
Hello Al,
As Will said earlier, the Bradely Effect is specifically about whites dissembling in pre-election polls, not about whether or not white people vote in racist ways. But your general point about Yglesias discussing candidates and positions in terms of their popularity with whites has its own dignity (even if that is still completely different from what York was doing).
April 30th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Stop playing the race card, Matt!
April 30th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Seriously, though, people are making too much of York’s idiotic argument. Just realize that he’s a douche and move on. People like this are not worth our time.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
“You must not read the blogging of a popular blogger named Matthew Yglesias. He said that Hillary won the Ohio primary due to white racist voters.”
It’s worth pointing out, yet again, that the context of that claim was an exit poll that showed Hillary winning a substantial majority of voters who said that the candidate’s race played an important or very important role in their decision, and that the percentages involved were nearly sufficient to account for Clinton’s margin of victory. Hillary really did win the Ohio Primary, in large part, because of voters who chose her because Obama is black, by their own admission.
Meanwhile, the most charitable reading of York is that he’s implying many blacks would oppose Obama’s policies if Obama opposed them. Whereas Obama’s larger number of white admirers would evidently still support them. And even this charitable reading is somewhat insulting and clearly false, as non-Senator Michael Steele would be the first to tell you.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Moral Panicker,
This is how I look at it.
A white kid bellyaching simply because a black kid got into a school and he didn’t is being racist.
A white kid bellyaching because the black kid got into the school by way of a racial preference is not being racist. Believing in race-blind admissions is not racist; giving presences based on race most certainly is inherently racist.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
If you’re including laws, court cases and policies, I agree. If we’re just talking about media, you’re way off.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
It’s exactly like some wealthy, white kid complaining that a poor, black kid got a scholarship or college placement for being black
If affirmative action actually resulted in an increase in poor black kids attending university with a comparable decrease in wealthy white kids attending it would be a much better program. Unfortunately poor black kids are not the prime beneficiaries of affirmative action nor are the “costs” born solely by wealthy white kids.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Bellyaching that a black person got your spot based on race is racist. Being principally opposed to racial preferences is not.
In what other situation is complaining about something to which you are principally opposed a bad idea? This makes no sense.
I’m opposed to racial preferences in college admissions because I think it is bad policy when colleges should be targeting disadvantaged students and schools.
Instead of smart students? Man, that’s a bad idea.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Quoting the “liberal” Bob Beckel on California’s anti-affirmative action Prop 209: “Would you like to see the UCLA law school 80 percent Asian? Because at the rate it’s going, by the year 2007 UCLA will be 80 percent Asian. Will that make you happy?”
If the Republicans want to end affirmative action, I say bring it.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
bjrubble wrote: Although that seems to be a common defense for right-wingers these days — they’re not evil, they’re just unbelievably incompetent.
Perhaps we could call it the “Katrina defense.” That would also help emphasize that, although it’s fine to hold the belief that government is incompetent and useless, it’s probably not very wise to choose people with that belief to run the government.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
The problem with political correctness is not that it makes life hard for white people. Its that at least when it takes certain forms it prevents us from having an honest political debate. I seem to remember a lot of bogus outrage when Hillary Clinton gave LBJ significant credit for progress on civil rights. Instead of arguing about whether her comments were historically accurate, which I think they were, we had a lot of people saying that it was racially insensitive. In other words if you didn’t accept an arbitrary and false version of history then you were a racist. Since I think there is a lot of actual racism in the world I would prefer that we focus on it. And to the extent that people accused Obama of sexism I would basically say the same thing.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Byron York’s mask slipped and he got caught. You know who else’s mask slips quite a bit? Andrew Sullivan’s.
It is extremely appropriate to call Byron York out. I also think it is appropriate to point out the racist history of National Review. I doubt they can help themselves.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Wow, Matt, that was a deeply reasearched, deeply thoughtful response to my challenges to you to finally come up with _something_ to say about the Ricci Supreme Court reverse discrimination case! Your post is an intellectual feast, full of statistics and profound legal reasoning.
My hat’s off to you.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I’m going to have to disagree here. Bellyaching that a black kid got into a school by way of a racial preference is racist without perfect information. How on earth would someone know that? They don’t. They are making an assumption. In law school, employers would ask black students what they got on their LSAT as a coded question – are you an affirmative action candidate? It is most definitely racist to do that. No one is asking white students if their parents are legacies to root out that advantage. There isn’t anything racist about affirmative action though it isn’t a productive or efficient way of tackling the problem.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I would have to agree with AL on comment 8 and say that i do not think anyone downplays racism. This is like when Holder said that Americans were “cowards” for not discussing Race. I am 40 years old and that has been by far the number one topic and issue in this nation.
I grew up in Prince Georges County ,MD and have lived in Baltimore for 15 years and i can tell you ,that they sure as hell have not been ignoring it at either place.
I still remember the video that was widely shown during the primary .It was the one with the drunk white lady on the back of the moterbike, with few teeth ,saying the N word, and saying how she was voting for Clinton and not Obama. She was also waving a bottle of alchohol around! It was filmed in either Kentucky or West Virginia.
Many people in the media used this woman as an example of how most whites felt, and how ALL working class whites felt.
Did anyone notice that there was not even a paved road to this womans house!! they searched high and damn low until they could find someone to act like a dumb hillbilly in front of the camera.And she still had to be drunk to say this crap.
I am not denying that there is racism .There is white racism and there is black racism.We will never solve the problem completly ,but we should try.
We can help make things better by honest conversation. Which means not calling someone a racist for disagreeing with you,
We should also avoid waiting around for someone to say something stupid or racist , and then claiming that they speak for ALL blaacks, or for ALL whites.
NEWSFLASH :: Al Sharpton does not speak for ALL blacks. And Don Imus does not speak for ALL white people.
I think our so called leaders have more problems with race than the rest of us do.
working class blacks and whites ,are a lot more likely to work together , ride the bus together, and live in the same nieghborhood as rich people , especialy rich whites.
I am not saying that there are not blue collar racists. There are. But i think some intelectuals are so disconnected from society that they have no idea what has been going on in society.
To say that Americans do not discuss the problem of racism is incredible
April 30th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Coates says:
“But here is your political correctness run amok:
“James Watson argues, not simply that there may be a biological explanation for IQ differences, but says of notions of intellectual equality, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not to be true,” and be held up as a truth-teller.”
So, Matt, by giving such praise to Coates’ piece, I gather you are hereby endorsing the kicking to the curb of America’s most distinguished man of science in 2007? The Democratic Party sure is the Party of Science!
April 30th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
CRAIG at comment 52 hits the nail on the head. I am all for dealing with racism. But to often the things we discuss are silly distractions.
For instance . Yes ,MR York is an idiot and has a messed up way of thinking. But i have no right to call him a racist and neither does anybody else.
I saw several drug deals go down in my neighborhood today.There is a rumor about some drug gangs in the neighborhood starting to have conflicts [ie shooting at each other]. And a lot of my friends black AND white are losing their jobs.
So in the grand scheme of things i don’t care what MR York thinks or says.I never even heard about him until yesterday on this blog.
Let’s discuss IMPORTANT things .Racism and poverty included.But not what some talking head says
April 30th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
York is a moron.
But the acceptability of anti-white racism among black people troubles me, I think to some degree black prejudice towards whites is used by white racists to self justify their position, and that is only human nature – if someone hates you for your group it is natural to respond in kind to the hater’s group.
I hope that when he has a chance to catch his breath Obama addresses this from the bully pulpit, I think he could have a great influence on black culture that would allow real dialog and understanding between races.
So far I think the greatest inroads to racism in this country was Loving v Virginia, which Obama is too old to be a product of but is the mixed race exemplar. For example all the racists in my extended family had mixed race grandchildren or great grandchildren … and they changed.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Hello Steve Sailer,
Watson is from Britain. This is a trivial objection, but so is your troll-craft.
Hello bperk,
The corollary to asking a white person about a legacy in a law school job interview would be asking an African-American about his or her skin color. The latter is not necessary to do. It is very true one does not know whether or not affirmative action made the person a student at that law school without perfect information while the same is true of a student with family connections to the school being judged as a legacy student.
The reason potential employers ask about LSAT scores and grades is to judge performance. To judge if a beneficiary of affirmative action (this is different from being a student because of affirmative action) is underqualified one asks about LSAT scores and grades. To determine if the beneficiary of a legacy (this is different from etc.) is underqualified … one asks about LSAT scores and grades. When employers assume white students to be qualified in terms of what scores and grades can measure compared to African-American students, they are being racist. But the act of asking African-American students, based on nothing but skin color, about their grades and scores is not racist. The potential employer is interested in seeing the grades and scores of the particular individual.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
But the acceptability of anti-white racism among black people troubles me, I think to some degree black prejudice towards whites is used by white racists to self justify their position, and that is only human nature – if someone hates you for your group it is natural to respond in kind to the hater’s group.
So the troubling part about black racism is that it’s used as a reason by whites to feel racist? Why don’t you just come out and say that you think black people are babies who must be coddled?
April 30th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Disagree, eh? Order is restored to the universe.
My black kid white kid formulation was a poor choice. It clouded the issue unnecessarily.
Affirmative action is inherently racist. It is giving a person an advantage based on his race. That is definitional racism. You can say that affirmative action is good policy, but it is clearly a policy of discriminating one race from another.
That’s really all I have to say about that. We can go around in circles for weeks.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Seriously, Jack. This thread is pointless, but both you and bperk and many otherse made a number of good points and should feel proud abouth this and happy for your ability to do so.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
A trivial objection to a trivial objection: Watson is from Chicago, not Britain.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/watson-bio.html
April 30th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Jes braggin’ but my new 24 year-old homegirl will turn on the TV just to “get (her) Obama on”. But, I guess that don’t count since O’Reilly’s the cable king mandingo to “the folks”.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
The point is: Byron York does not know what he’s talking about.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I stand corrected, Halvorson. I got him confused with Crick. For some reason I thought it was the Briton who got in trouble over issues of racism.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
“I got him confused with Crick. For some reason I thought it was the Briton who got in trouble over issues of racism.”
Sir Francis Crick had the good sense to die before the reign of political correctness and its accompanying Two Minute Hates that Watson was subjected to got quite so severe. The posthumous release of Crick’s papers show he also engaged in crimethink about race and IQ:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/01/francis-crick-james-watsons-partner-was.html
Clearly, we should dig up Crick’s bones and have everybody spit on them.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I don’t even understand what black people do that make them racist. Many black people have the same views as whites about other black people, buying into many of the same stereotypes. I have never heard black people implying superiority in any important way over white people (dancing sure, maybe even athletics, but I did say important). No doubt black people have racial prejudices that assume that white people will behave in a certain way (usually unfairly vis a vis black people), but that isn’t some superiority thing or trying to subjugate white people. It is a defense mechanism.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I think that is pretty much the definition of racism to me. It is a well-known red flag anytime you get a question about your LSAT – not grades. Grades are about your performance in law school, which is completely relevant. The LSAT is about what factors the school used in their admission process. It’s not at all relevant. Employers who ask it do not ask it of all students. They are asking it of black students. Black students are being forced to jump through an additional hurdle in the interview process that white students are not. That’s racism.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Hello bperk,
The exact sentence before the one you q
April 30th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
REGARDING MR BPERK’S # 69 COMMENT
I have worked many companies with over a hundred people, where I was the ONLY white guy. And i have to sadly say that there are some black guys, who do believe that blacks are superior ,intellectually and physically .
I have found it interesting that most people who believe in either black supremacy or white supremacy are usally not good examples of either .
most black supremacists are stupid and do not get along with other black people.
And most white supremacists are the last people i would use as exhibit A to prove white supremacy. Not only are they usally border line retarded, but they do not get along with other white people as well.
As to the argument that blacks have no political power.have you ever been to washington DC ,Detroit or Baltimore.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Hello bperk,
The exact sentence before the one you quote is ” When employers assume white students to be qualified in terms of what scores and grades can measure compared to African-American students, they are being racist.” Also, you are right the “based on nothing but skin color,” does make the scenario that I wrote also racist. That particular phrase should belong in the sentence before the one you quote. I apologize for the confusion caused by too much quick editing on my part (in fact, the comment you reference as I wrote is completely inconsistent because the two consecutive sentences under discussion contradict each other!). The sentence you quoted should read:
“But the act of asking African-American students about their grades and scores is not racist.”
I think your distinction between grades and LSAT scores is not as clear as you think it is. If the law schools decide it is not completely arbitrary and does measure some aspect of legal reasoning, then there is no reason for employers in the legal profession not to make that same assumption. (Of course, if they do not make that assumption, that is fine too).
Your remark previous to this is completely wrong, even if we ignore fringes like the Nation of Islam. In my personal experience I have heard black people say they do not like being around white people because of their presumed hostility to black people. Would you say this is implying superiority in any important way or would you say that it is trivial, or would you say that it does not matter because it is totally true? Secondly, if we assume that musical ability (It is way more than just dancing), athleticism, friendliness, savviness, spirituality, (why not?) male endowment, and any other issue that are regularly appropriated by some African-Americans in terms of their superiority can be justified as unimportant, what can a white person claim? Or does it all revolve around the issue of being a defense mechanism? At what point in terms of the progress to racial equality does that particular reason to become illegitimate?
April 30th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I think the issue of who is and who isn’t a racist misses the point. It’s hard for me to see how one could grow up in this country and NOT be racist.
Given the horrible mass media depictions of race we all got/get from day one, for the foreseeable future the real determiner of morality regarding racism should not be whether or not one is completely void of racist thoughts, impulses, etc. (because not many of us could meet that standard). It should be whether or not one has spent time learning about other groups – and whether or not one looks for one’s own stereotyped, racist thoughts and impulses in order not to act on them.
I do agree that some of us are almost certainly more aggressively racist than others because some of us were exposed formatively to extreme racism in close proximity (Dad was a member of the KKK, etc) while others got it primarily through the ambient culture, but I would submit that we all have racist moments and that we all ought to own it in order to truly deal with it. I am not, for shorthand sake, addressing the issue of racism vs. prejudice (racism as an expression of power).
April 30th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
thanks matt.
what is even worse than york’s ignorance is the fact that he is routinely provided platforms from which to spew his bile.
and no one ever calls him on this type of stuff.
york deserves whatever comes down on him, as he skirts or goes over this line all of the time.
but because he is a reasonable, well-spoken, nicely groomed white guy with a nice tie, he gets to say whatever kind of nonsense he wants to say.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Yes, on average, racism is still more prevalent problem than anti racism, but that does not gie us much help on specific policy issues. Even though racism is still more prevalent problem than anti racism, it may still be the case that the failure to selelect any non-white firefighters in Connecticut was not racist.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Pete,
Many people in the media used this woman as an example of how most whites felt, and how ALL working class whites felt.
No.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
MR ANTHONY at comment 77
I appreciate your opinion ,even if you do not agree with me.
But could you elaborate.Do you think that the media did not sterrotype rural whites ?
April 30th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Pete, no one in the media claimed that that woman in the video you mentioned represented most whites and all working class whites. You claimed that “many people in the media” did that. If you can find someone who did, let alone many, I’ll gladly stand corrected.
April 30th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
MR ANTHONY
This video was shown in news stories about how Obama was having trouble getting rural voters in kentucky and West Virginia to vote for him.Racism was blamed . I can not see any other way to see it , but as a portrayal of rural whites.This was not the only video of this type shown.
I f you do not see those stories as portraying rural whites as racists,then there is nothing i can say that will convince you otherwise. I think they were not subtle in the least.
My original point ,by the way was that we do NOT ignore race or racism in this country. What ever your opinion is on the video, you must admit that showing a woman using the N word on tv ,is defintly not a case of ignoring the issue.
A tremendouse amount of the campaign was spent talking about race. Some of the talk was silly. But i think much of it was healthy for our democracy.
As i said my point was that racism is NOT ignored in America.And that we should have an honest debate about the subject of racism without name calling.
I still stand by that point.
Im sorry we are in disagreement MR ANTHONY , but i wish you well, none the less.
April 30th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Pete, there is a difference between using that video to illustrate a problem–the racism of some voters (which was documented in interviews during the W. Virginia primary)–and claiming that that woman represented most whites and all working class whites. I would be truly shocked if your claim–that anyone in the media presented that video as representative all working class whites and most whites with–were true. Again, I’d settle for one example, not the many that you claim.
April 30th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
By the way MR ANTHONY, not to belabor the point ,but if the woman was not supposed to represent most rural whites , then why show her . She was not Joe the plumber who sought out Obama. She lived in a house with a DIRT ROAD!They tried hard to find someone like her.
once again mr Anthony i am sorry we are in disagreement , but the best to you anyways
April 30th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
MR ANTHONY
if the media did not believe that most blue collar whites would not vote for Obama because they were racist. They would not have run endless stories showing blue collar whites saying racist things.If they thought that these guys were a minority [ they were] . Why bother showing them. The media showed them because they actually thought that there were enough racist whites to prevent Obama from winning
Once again while i disagree with you i feel that it is an honest disagreement.best regards to you
April 30th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Pete, it was a real phenomenon that affected the outcome of at least one primary and thus worth reporting on as a cultural force and factor in the election. To conclude from that that “many in the media used this woman as an example of how most whites felt”—most whites, let alone rural or working class—reveals a lack of careful distinctions on your part. I am white and never got the feeling that many in the media were claiming that most of us were too racist to support Obama. I’d like to see a citation or transcript for when you think this happened; I’m sure it would be easy to demonstrate that your interpretation rests on over-sensitivity or seeing implicit contentions that were not advanced.
April 30th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
also, “endless stories showing blue collar whites saying racist things”??? I’d like some statistics on that.
April 30th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
My final post to mr ANTHONY
SIR i think there is a misunderstanding between us. I am saying that they stereotyped rural and working class whites. And you are saying that i meant all whites. If this misunderstanding was my fault i apoligise. I still stand by my point about the stereotyping.I also feel that you were ignoring my main points in my original comment.
I am sorry but we will have to remain in disagreement on this. And while it has been nice to discuss this with you.I need to eat. And i hear a cheeseburger at the local bar calling my name. BEST WISHES to you sir ,and i am sorry we can not come together in agreement.
I would urge you to reread my original comment though,because i think you missed the points that i was trying to make.
The fact that we had this conversation shows that the topic of racism is definitly not ignored.
April 30th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Pete, I re-read your original comment. You claimed exactly what I said you claimed:
Many people in the media used this woman as an example of how most whites felt, and how ALL working class whites felt.
I’d be happy to hear how I misinterpreted that unambiguous statement.
I should also note that the idea that racism woudl be a problem for Obama was hardly the result of the media highlighting this one video. It was the narrative being advanced by the Clinton campaign, and the governor of Pennsylvania opined that large segments of his state’s population simply wouldn’t vote for a black candidate. These are developments that it is legitimate to report on; the idea that the media manufactured a story out of a stupid internet video is silly.
April 30th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
And yes, you and I–visitors to a liberal blog–talk about race and racism. But it is a gaping wound in American society that is too often only talked about in the form of complaining about political correctness and in other expressions of resentment. Looking at how other societies address their historic wounds is instructive. Jewish museums and Holocaust memorials are all over Germany—can you imagine the outcry if they tried to build a national slavery museum in Alabama? Yet Confederate memorials are a dime a dozen and, in my experience, most people are hardly wiling to acknowledge the racism of this, choosing instead to hide behind “heritage”.
April 30th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Yet Confederate memorials are a dime a dozen and, in my experience, most people are hardly wiling to acknowledge the racism of this, choosing instead to hide behind “heritage”
That’s if you think it was mostly about racism and not about economic disagreements. Lincoln was explicit that if the South didn’t apply the Morrill tariff, it would be grounds for war. He also had no problem trying to convince black intellectuals that blacks should move to Liberia or Central America (anywhere but the states). He wanted blacks gone, which was a reflection of much of the North. So, if other countries had peacefully ended slavery with payments for manumission recently, the idea that all things Confederate are an expression of racism is pretty simplistic.
April 30th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Healthy Markup–see Ta-Nehisi Coates’s recent posts and commentary for a rebuttal to your point. I don’t think that Confederate flag waiving today–and remember, the battle flag only became a vibrant symbol during the opposition to civil rights–has much to do with commemorating economic disagreements.
I’d be curious to see your response to TNC’s recent considerations of this topic. It was probably borderline thread-jacking for me to bring it up here, though.
April 30th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Anthony,
TNC’s post doesn’t really go very much into Confederate flags. Regarding the claims:
“Race” is a mushy term, but…
So if I believe that different races of people seem to be of different average I.Q. I’m a racist? What if it’s true? Physical attributes in various races are obviously different. What’s so weird about thinking different groups of people whose ancestors lived in different environments have different I.Q.s on average? It seems obvious that there could be large variations. If I go throughout my day thinking (as I used to when I was a liberal) that seeing a difference in average I.Q. was a sign that I was a racist, and then I find a body of data that agrees with my suspicions in every regard, I don’t think that means I’m racist. Keep in mind that almost none of the guys who follow HBD in IQ think that it’s their “race” that has the highest average IQ.
I have a sinking feeling that the quote about welfare checks is exactly right. If you read the whole monograph, the author was clearly enraged at the media, who refused to show all that lead to the beating of King (which was excessive) but if he’s dead right about the welfare checks stopping things after days of innocent whites and Asians being beaten, murdered, and robbed by black people, I don’t think it’s racist. I recommend you read the thing.
Ferraro — grotesque
Michael Richards — deranged
But I’m not even sure about everything that happened with Richards. What happened before the stuff on camera? Is it really that racist to use a racist term in anger, if only to strike back? How long had the hecklers heckled and what did they call Richards? If they made a bunch of anti-white slurs and he responded in kind, would you say he was being racist?
If you tell me that there’s an objective truth and that to believe it makes me racist, I call B.S..
April 30th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Healthy Markup,
You engage on sophistry and racism! You’re a two fer.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
You engage on sophistry and racism! You’re a two fer.
Am I trying to trick you? And how do you define “racism?”
April 30th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
“engage IN”. Oh well. One can engage on I suppose. But it makes me think of the penguin on the TV.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Yes and look it up, unless you need me to define “look” “it” and “up” as well.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Hugh,
There are many definitions. Since you won’t tell me what it means to you, I’ll assume your opinions are so mushy that you’d rather write two meaningless comments than one actual definition that I can quickly pick apart.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Assume away!
April 30th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Healthy Markup–you sure are racist!
April 30th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Is it really that racist to use a racist term in anger, if only to strike back?
Uh….yes.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Anthony,
Since Hugh is unable to, why don’t you define “racist?”
April 30th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
racist: someone who insists that Confederate symbols have nothing to do with race and then follows it up with your post #91.
Now bring on the sophistry.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
By the way, trolls, are you paying attention? When we talk about caring about the manufactured issue of excesses of political correctness while ignoring real racism, we’re talking about Healthy Markup.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
racist: someone who insists that Confederate symbols have nothing to do with race and then follows it up with your post #91.
This definition isn’t very complete. And your reading comp is off as I made clear that not all things Confederate are racist, not that “Confederate symbols have nothing to do with race.” You guys are unable to give me a definition of something that you seem really sure of. Try again.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
sophistry? check.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Anthony,
The reason you won’t define “racist” is because you know I’ll just compare what you say with real-world examples that show that your definition is meaningless… wuss.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:00 am
because if there’s one thing that the real world shows, it’s that definitions of racism are meaningless. Come on, man.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:13 am
because if there’s one thing that the real world shows, it’s that definitions of racism are meaningless. Come on, man.
You’re sure I’m a “racist” and you can’t tell me what a “racist” is. How do you even decide that what you’re looking at or hearing is “racist?” Even the Rethuglicans eventually came up with a good, self-serving definition of “terrorist.”
Now, you’re a liberal, so you should be able to at least take a stab at a working definition.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:16 am
So, if other countries had peacefully ended slavery with payments for manumission recently, the idea that all things Confederate are an expression of racism is pretty simplistic.
Actually, that statement is pretty simplistic. The most important reason that confederate symbols are an expression of racism today is that racists back in the days of the civil rights movement chose to use confederate symbols to express their racism. They were the ones who made that choice. No one else.
The lesser reason is the older one: that the Civil War was about slavery and race.
That’s if you think [the war] was mostly about racism and not about economic disagreements. Lincoln was explicit that if the South didn’t apply the Morrill tariff, it would be grounds for war. He also had no problem trying to convince black intellectuals that blacks should move to Liberia or Central America (anywhere but the states). He wanted blacks gone, which was a reflection of much of the North.
Three standard cliches of the old argument, none of which has any great relevance.
We know the Civil War was about slavery and race because the people who advocated secession at the time said so, in no uncertain terms. The notion that the war was primarily about anything else didn’t get promoted widely until long after the war was over.
No one is ever going to to fight a civil war and kill a million people over tariff rates!
The fact that people in the north were racist isn’t proof of anything. The northern states weren’t trying to secede from the Union, the Southern states were. Northerners weren’t trying to enslave anyone. Southerners were trying to expand slavery and enslave more people.
Most Northerners viewed slavery as an evil, even if they didn’t care about the misery it inflicted on Blacks. They saw it as a corrupting influence, one that was a drag on Southern prosperity and that of the entire nation. Even so, there was no clear anti-Southern majority in the North until secession became a real possibility in the late 1850s.
There were not that many Northerners willing to die to free the slaves in 1860. There was a great host of them willing to fight and die to save the United States from domination or destruction at that hands of the Slavocracy running the south.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:23 am
Now, you’re a liberal, so you should be able to at least take a stab at a working definition.
I’m declining to play along because the questions you ask above show that you have a pretty good sense of what racism is.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:30 am
MR Anthony
I understand the point that you are trying to make.But i did not mean to say that the video was the only problem.Quite the contrary.My point was that it was part of a larger theme.
And yes,clintons campaign pushed the story a lot. They were basicly saying that democrats should not select Obama as the democratic canidate because he was unelectable because Americans are too racist too vote for him. I felt that this kind of attitude was an insult to all Americans.And especialy to Clinton’s own supporters. Many people voted for Clinton because they thought she was the better canidate.[ i voted for Obama myself].
Nothing in my origanal comment contridicted this. I made clear that there was racism in America.I simply do not feel that this is a subject that no one talks about. For crying out loud the whole campaign was spent talking about race.
Does this absolve Americans of it’s racial sins. of course not.My whole comment was about how we need to do a better job talking about it!Unfourtantly you seem to want to cherry pick minor points and argue over trivia about videos.You also seem to have engaged in a name calling match with others on this board.I do not care who started it .it is pointless.
If you do not think that blue collar whites are routinly stereotyped as racists fine. But you can not tell me that i have no reason at all to beleive that they are.
Obama won more white male votes then Kerry did in 2004. he could not do that if every blue collar white guy was a racist.
I do not wish to get in a prolonged debate with you sir, since i have just gotten home and need to sleep.
I am glad you are concerned about this issue.But i must say that you seem to be twisting my words around to make it seem like i am not.
Considering my neighborhood is predominatly black. As are many of my co workers and friends, this is not just an inntellectual exercise for me.
If the black neighborhoods suffer .I suffer as well.I do not like seeing my black friends lose their jobs any more than i like my white friends loseing theirs.
You seem less interested in creating solutions and more interested in proving that you are right about minor points . you continually ignore my main points.
With all due respect mr Anthony ,there have been many posts recently about infrastructure issues and urban planning issues.
Many people contributed some very interesting viewpoints and offered solutions. If you go to the comments area you will see that i posted several comments.Maybe you are new to this blog.But i saw no comments from you about these issues.
You would spend your time better by offering solutions, then by simply critisising others comments and questioning their motives. You seem more interested about fighting ” culture wars” than discussing the problems our cities face.There have been many comments about these issues.But looking at the last four or five posts about urban planning and transportation, you seem to be absent.
Please contribute to these discussions.And by all means feel free to disagree with me.I like having my beleifs challenged . It makes me more open minded.
But on this issue at least you seem less interested in changing my mind than being simply argumentative.
Having said that i am still glad that you made your views known to me.And i am glad that you are concerned about this issue.My invatation for you to comment on solutions for Americas problems was sincere.
BEST WISHES TO YOU SIR AND GOOD NIGHT
May 1st, 2009 at 12:39 am
Pete, you made a claim. I repeated your claim and said that I found it–the precise claim that you made–hard to believe. This is hardly twisting your words around or getting hung up on minor points since I can’t read your mind and can only respond to what you say, the claims you make.
May 1st, 2009 at 1:33 am
If you do not think that blue collar whites are routinly stereotyped as racists fine. But you can not tell me that i have no reason at all to beleive that they are.
No.
May 1st, 2009 at 1:37 am
Well, at least the reasons you gave for believing that aren’t good enough, as they’re based on impressions of the media that just aren’t accurate.
May 1st, 2009 at 3:33 am
Healthy–just saw your comment #33. Your sense that “the Jews” get top spots in universities (or really that “the Jews” as a group do or get anything, which is different from talking about Jewish individuals or cultural trends) woudl be a good starting point to figure out why you are racist.
May 1st, 2009 at 4:47 am
Am I a completely disingenuous dbag?
Yes.
May 1st, 2009 at 5:08 am
Anthony,
This is what I was responding to:
“Opposition to racial preferences is not self-involved or racist.”
Of course, it requires completely ignoring the advantages of white privilege to complain.
Knowing, as I do from listening to Al Franken, that people who identify as Jews go to college at much higher rates than the rest of the country, I merely cribbed a stat off of the NYT.
What I was doing was showing that the idea of “white privilege” is bunk because a “class” of people with stereotypical physical characteristics “Jews” happened to hugely outperform “gentiles.” How can they do this without keeping the “gentiles” down? The liberal assumption is that black people are an “underclass” which is being kept down by “whites” instead of there just being a bunch of individuals with superficial similarities who, on average, don’t score the same as others who have different superficial similarities to each other. This, of course, does not mean that all white people are smarter than all black people, or all Jews are smarter than all gentiles, or all asians are smarter than all whites. It just means that when people study average IQs, with a raft of different tests, across time and accounting for all kinds of confounding variables, some “races” outperform other “races” on average.
So, what does this mean? Liberals try to convince themselves and everyone they see that all the disparities in outcomes between different races that they obsess about are the result of the racism, greed, or whatever of an overclass. So, they walk around in this discomfiting state of self-contradiction because the races or classes don’t actually seem to be fitting the liberal architecture. As a liberal, this drove me nuts because I kept on running into the difference between what my senses were telling me and what my dogma was insisting I believe. Was I really just part of an overclass trying to keep another race down, or was something else going on? Finally, my senses won.
This doesn’t mean that I view people by race first, the way liberals do. There’s no need, because we’re all individuals, there are lots of black people who are obviously smarter than I and I don’t have to go far to find idiotic whites, asians (my IQ overlords), or Jews, but these divisions are so ridiculous much of the time, with slave legacies like the “one drop rule,” constant interbreeding, etc. I think it’s way less “racist” to ascribe many average differences in outcome between different perceived races as coming from some difference in average traits than to think that the whole of America is one big racial-stratification machine the way liberals seem to think.
Plus, we could just play the “is this racist?” game and you’d quickly find that your ideas of what constitutes racism have no consistent structure or reason.
May 1st, 2009 at 7:11 am
It’s worth pointing out, yet again,that LaFuckwit Progressive is a pretentious git with a credibility issue.
The Yglesias “crucial racist vote” post was based on an early exit poll that showed Clinton receiving +3% due to the ‘race was important’ vote while she was winning Ohio by +10.
The exit poll did not ask if if the candidate’s race played an important or very important role in their decision but instead combined the questions was the race of the candidate the single most important factor (6% of respondents but no breakdown in the corresponding votes) and was the race of the candidate one of several important factors to create the “important” category. Did you vote for Clinton because Obama is black was not one of the poll questions.
The final MSNBC Ohio exit poll, shows that of the 20% of the voters it classified as thinking the race of the candidates was important, Clinton won 59-39. That 20% win would give Clinton a +4 points in a state she won by 8. For comparison purposes, those over 65 were +6.5, Democrats were +6.87, and white women +15.8 for Clinton in terms of total votes.
Of course Axe had the Obamanauts like MattY and LaFuckwit focusing on racism to explain away the loss. Those two geniuses thought Clinton should either drop out or die because she was going to sabotage the Democratic Party.
May 1st, 2009 at 8:20 am
Sophistry is all about trying to distract from any legitimate debate. This is what Healthy Markup is doing. If he really wants to engage, he ought to be the one to offer a definition of racism. Let’s see if he can. My bet is he won’t do so. He’ll try to evade by saying the burden is on those who identify as liberal, etc. But this is a sham. My guess is that if he does attempt to offer a definition it will be so weak and qualified that it will be rendered meaningless. But let’s give him a chance! Show us you’re not just about sophistry.
May 1st, 2009 at 8:37 am
If Healthy Markup’s assertion is that there is no such thing as racism then he has no burden to offer a definition of that term in my opinion. We can all go on our merry way. But he should just come out and say that this is his assertion if this is the case. If his assertion is that people are misapplying the concept of racism, then he can indeed be asked to offer up his definition of racism, and ought to offer it up since he has asked for so many others to do so.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:09 am
I’d say the voting patterns of African Americans make it pretty damn clear who does, and who does not, respect them as individuals, and who displays racial stereotyping and prejudice in their dealings with them.
Conservatives are so careful not to view people by race first that they make Michael Steele the Chairman of the RNC.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:20 am
[...] in a support show of support for Coates’ assessment, Matthew Yglesias at Think Progress, says: Ta-Nehisi Coates has an important post here that I think could probably use an “amen” [...]
May 1st, 2009 at 1:01 pm
[...] http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/racism-is-a-bigger-problem-than-anti-racism.php [...]
May 1st, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Because the minority evangelicals identify so strongly with Bush, for reasons that go beyond policy, his approval ratings are skewed high.
Let’s see, Black Americans on average seem to identify very strongly with Obama (ya think). So strongly that many may look beyond some positions he has which they may not agree with. Hmm… doesn’t quite sound like a Klansman.
May 1st, 2009 at 2:00 pm
“There is nothing more painful to me… than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
As spoken by a Southern white preacher
“There is nothing more painful to me… than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
As spoken by Jesse Jackson
May 1st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Poor Healthy Markup, a victim of the fact that context matters and not everything is exactly the same. Keep sticking it to the real racists!
May 1st, 2009 at 3:20 pm
o, and thinking that your thought-experiment parallels mean anything….you’re getting closer to figuring out a definition of racist all by yourself!
May 1st, 2009 at 4:55 pm
And, as predicted, Health Markup did not offer up a definition of racism. Nor did he say whether or not he believes racism exists. This is because he is a clown who is unwilling to do anything but hide in the bushes and throw pebbles and passers-by. I have a definition for him:
flib⋅ber⋅ti⋅gib⋅bet /ˈflɪbərtiˌdʒɪbɪt/
–noun 1. a chattering or flighty, light-headed person.