Hey, people. Your name down, pass it around! ~ No1KState
White Folks Step Up to Fight Racism With “US for All of Us”
Terry Keleher
Jan 21, 2010
Showing posts with label antiracism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label antiracism. Show all posts
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Monday, June 8, 2009
Word Thieves
Remember I kept having trouble getting to the bottom of what disturbed me so much about the accusation of Sotomayor as a racist here (second full paragraph)? And my sort of putting my finger on the issue here? Well, here's another problem with the accusation and why I'm so disturbed.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
You're Not Racist, but You're a Racism-Tolerator!
And that's equally as bad!
Plus, you're probably just plain ol' racist. ~ No1KState
ScienceDaily (Jan. 9, 2009) — One reason racism persists is that many people imagine they would respond strongly to a racist act but actually respond with indifference, a new study led by York University shows.
The research examines why acts of blatant racism against blacks still occur with alarming regularity, even though being labeled as a racist in modern society has become a powerful stigma.
"People do not think of themselves as prejudiced, and they predict that they would be very upset by a racist act and would take action," said lead author Kerry Kawakami, a psychology professor in York's Faculty of Health. "However, we found that their responses are much more muted than they expect when they are actually faced with an overtly racist comment."
Kawakami led the study at York with graduate student Francine Karmali. University of British Columbia professor Elizabeth Dunn, an expert on people's ability to predict their future emotional responses, and Yale University professor John Dovidio, an expert on prejudice, are co-authors.
In the study, students who think they are waiting for an experiment to begin are exposed to racism. Specifically, a white confederate makes a racist comment about a black confederate when he briefly leaves the room. When he returns, the actual participant is asked to choose a partner to work with on a subsequent exercise.
The researchers studied 120 non-black participants who volunteered for the experiment and either directly experienced a racial incident or had the incident described to them. The first group watched a black man, posing as a fellow participant, slightly bump a white confederate also posing as a participant. After the black man left the room, the white confederate either said nothing, or "I hate it when black people do that," or said, "clumsy n____." Other groups did not directly experience the event but either read about it or watched it on videotape and were asked to predict their responses to the events.
The subjects who didn't experience the event were much more likely to report that they were upset at the white worker's slurs and to say they would not work with such a person. Those who actually experienced the event were less distressed and were as willing to work with the person who made racist comments as someone who did not.
Dovidio argues that participants who witness racism were much less willing to pay the emotional cost of confronting a racist than they thought they would be. That in turn means the racist pays less of a cost in social ostracism by expressing bias, he said.
"What we found was that students were more likely to choose the white confederate as a partner (63 per cent), despite the fact that the white person had made a racist comment about the black person," said Kawakami. "And the racist comments ranged from moderate to one of the most powerful anti-black slurs in the English language."
The findings may seem surprising at a time when America is about to inaugurate its first black president, but the election of one black man does not mean that racism is dead or that people will no longer tolerate acts of racism, Kawakami said.
Notably, there has been little research done on how people respond to prejudice toward others. However, University of British Columbia professor Elizabeth Dunn, one of the authors of the Science article, studies people's ability to predict their own affective and behavioural reactions.
"People often make inaccurate forecasts about how they would respond emotionally to negative events. They vastly overestimate how upset they would feel in bad situations such as hearing a racial slur," said Dunn. "One of the ways that people may stem the tide of negative emotions related to witnessing a racial slur is to re-construe the comment as a joke or as a harmless remark."
Further studies currently being conducted by these researchers are investigating how characteristics related to the racists and the target of prejudice increases or decreases emotional, behavioral, and physiological reactions to racial slurs. Examining people's perceptions of both the white and black confederate may provide important clues as to when people do and do not stand up against racism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Journal reference:
. Mispredicting Affective and Behavioral Responses to Racism. Science, January 9, 2009
Plus, you're probably just plain ol' racist. ~ No1KState
Surprisingly High Tolerance For Racism Revealed"What we found was that students were more likely to choose the white
confederate as a partner (63 per cent), despite the fact that the white person
had made a racist comment about the black person," said Kawakami. "And the
racist comments ranged from moderate to one of the most powerful anti-black
slurs in the English language."
ScienceDaily (Jan. 9, 2009) — One reason racism persists is that many people imagine they would respond strongly to a racist act but actually respond with indifference, a new study led by York University shows.
The research examines why acts of blatant racism against blacks still occur with alarming regularity, even though being labeled as a racist in modern society has become a powerful stigma.
"People do not think of themselves as prejudiced, and they predict that they would be very upset by a racist act and would take action," said lead author Kerry Kawakami, a psychology professor in York's Faculty of Health. "However, we found that their responses are much more muted than they expect when they are actually faced with an overtly racist comment."
Kawakami led the study at York with graduate student Francine Karmali. University of British Columbia professor Elizabeth Dunn, an expert on people's ability to predict their future emotional responses, and Yale University professor John Dovidio, an expert on prejudice, are co-authors.
In the study, students who think they are waiting for an experiment to begin are exposed to racism. Specifically, a white confederate makes a racist comment about a black confederate when he briefly leaves the room. When he returns, the actual participant is asked to choose a partner to work with on a subsequent exercise.
The researchers studied 120 non-black participants who volunteered for the experiment and either directly experienced a racial incident or had the incident described to them. The first group watched a black man, posing as a fellow participant, slightly bump a white confederate also posing as a participant. After the black man left the room, the white confederate either said nothing, or "I hate it when black people do that," or said, "clumsy n____." Other groups did not directly experience the event but either read about it or watched it on videotape and were asked to predict their responses to the events.
The subjects who didn't experience the event were much more likely to report that they were upset at the white worker's slurs and to say they would not work with such a person. Those who actually experienced the event were less distressed and were as willing to work with the person who made racist comments as someone who did not.
Dovidio argues that participants who witness racism were much less willing to pay the emotional cost of confronting a racist than they thought they would be. That in turn means the racist pays less of a cost in social ostracism by expressing bias, he said.
"What we found was that students were more likely to choose the white confederate as a partner (63 per cent), despite the fact that the white person had made a racist comment about the black person," said Kawakami. "And the racist comments ranged from moderate to one of the most powerful anti-black slurs in the English language."
The findings may seem surprising at a time when America is about to inaugurate its first black president, but the election of one black man does not mean that racism is dead or that people will no longer tolerate acts of racism, Kawakami said.
Notably, there has been little research done on how people respond to prejudice toward others. However, University of British Columbia professor Elizabeth Dunn, one of the authors of the Science article, studies people's ability to predict their own affective and behavioural reactions.
"People often make inaccurate forecasts about how they would respond emotionally to negative events. They vastly overestimate how upset they would feel in bad situations such as hearing a racial slur," said Dunn. "One of the ways that people may stem the tide of negative emotions related to witnessing a racial slur is to re-construe the comment as a joke or as a harmless remark."
Further studies currently being conducted by these researchers are investigating how characteristics related to the racists and the target of prejudice increases or decreases emotional, behavioral, and physiological reactions to racial slurs. Examining people's perceptions of both the white and black confederate may provide important clues as to when people do and do not stand up against racism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Journal reference:
. Mispredicting Affective and Behavioral Responses to Racism. Science, January 9, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Here's a Good One
Gotta be honest, I do laugh until it goes to far. Especially when it's evident that the person of color being used as the "prop" is becoming offended by the "joke."
Now, part of the reason I'm posting this is because it occurred to me that I hadn't addressed race in America in a while. I just thought it was time to continue the discussion. I have my own ideas, but haven't completely thought them out. Why I feel compelled to stick to a discussion of race, I don't know. I just do.~ No1KState
So, hat tip to Macon D of stuff white people do
act like a racist in order to demonstrate that you're not a racist
What is "hipster racism"?
I'm not sure of the origin of the phrase, but it sure is useful these days. In a discussion of the notorious New Yorker cover that featured the Obamas dressed up as terrorists as an example of hipster racism, AJ Plaid attributes the term to Carmen Van Kerckhove, and defines the phenomenon as "ideas, speech, and action meant to denigrate [another person's] race or ethnicity under the guise of being urbane, witty (meaning 'ironic' nowadays), educated, liberal, and/or trendy."
Plaid's definition fits a lot of hip, sardonic, or otherwise supposedly witty approaches to race, but I think it can be refined. For one thing, while most white practitioners of hipster racism do mean on the surface to denigrate another's race or ethnicity, their ultimate, ironic intent is to show that they don't really mean it, and thus, that they themselves are anything but racist. This seems to be how the upcoming Pauly Shore movie that I wrote about recently works, and as the clip below illustrates, it's sometimes how "The Daily Show" works.
The following skit, with John Oliver "traveling" to Kenya, is a good example. The segment begins as a trip meant to inform ignorant American viewers about the country that helped produce Barack Obama. When Oliver sits down with Zachary Muburi-Muita, the Kenyan Ambassador to the United Nations, the skit devolves instead into a sad instance of hipster racism, with Oliver playing a British moron who has no sense of what was wrong with England's racist colonial rule of Kenya.
As you watch, notice how at one point, when Muburi-Muita tells him that what's he's saying is "not funny," Oliver keeps going. In effect, a non-white voice of protest goes ignored and disrespected. Viewers hear Muburi-Muita's protest, but in the context of the skit, they're invited to laugh at it, and thus disrespect the person delivering it--"He can't even see that Oliver's joking! Look how far Oliver is willing to push this joke!"
As with other forms of satire, this type of humor goes wrong when it goes too far. In terms of race, one way that hipster humorists can go too far is by using people of color, who may or may not be in on the joke, as mere props in their own performance. By pretending to ignore the Kenyan ambassador's indignant response to a mock colonialist attitude, John Oliver demonstrates this failure. Whether the ambassador is in on the joke or not, the skit invites viewers to disregard and laugh at his perspective. That perspective is also trivialized because it's being used in a skit that's all about the performance of the white person at the center.
Self-reflecting irony of this sort is a crucial element of the hipster attitude, and as I understand it, hipster racism often arises in attempts at ironic humor. As Oliver demonstrates, this type of humor consists of acting like some sort of clueless, offensive bigot--be it a racist, a sexist, or a homophobe--for an audience that's supposed to know that you yourself are not really a bigot. You tell racist jokes or say and do racist things, but you're really making fun of bigots, so the humor is a supposedly legitimate form of satire.
White hipster humor about race is often meant to point out racism, but not in order to fight against it; the goal instead is ultimately narcissistic. The performance is an effort to get laughs, but it's also the comedians' self-centered effort to show that underneath it all, they themselves are not racists. This form of humor thus does little to dislodge the obstinate centrality of whiteness, because again, it's really all about the supposedly non-racist white performer, and not about the abuses endured by the targets of racism.
White people have a long history of defining themselves in opposition to the supposed inherent qualities of other races. When white people defined non-white people as savages, or as hypersexual, unintelligent or enslaved, they also defined themselves as the superior opposite--as civilized, restrained, intelligent, and free. In the same way, many white interactions with non-white people continue to be narcissistic, because they use non-white people to reflect back in a self-defining way on themselves.
When white hipster humorists perform a racial identity that involves interaction with non-white people, it's often all about the white person at the center. Using people of color so that you can pretend to be a racist in order to get laughs because you're mocking racists is not a genuinely respectful and anti-racist form of racial interaction. Instead, it's a way of acting in an ultimately racist manner, by using overt racism to suggest covertly, but falsely, that you yourself would never do anything racist. And since it's all really about you, and you're just using people of color for your own self-defining purposes, it amounts to little more than white self-centeredness all over again.
Now, part of the reason I'm posting this is because it occurred to me that I hadn't addressed race in America in a while. I just thought it was time to continue the discussion. I have my own ideas, but haven't completely thought them out. Why I feel compelled to stick to a discussion of race, I don't know. I just do.~ No1KState
So, hat tip to Macon D of stuff white people do
act like a racist in order to demonstrate that you're not a racist
What is "hipster racism"?
I'm not sure of the origin of the phrase, but it sure is useful these days. In a discussion of the notorious New Yorker cover that featured the Obamas dressed up as terrorists as an example of hipster racism, AJ Plaid attributes the term to Carmen Van Kerckhove, and defines the phenomenon as "ideas, speech, and action meant to denigrate [another person's] race or ethnicity under the guise of being urbane, witty (meaning 'ironic' nowadays), educated, liberal, and/or trendy."
Plaid's definition fits a lot of hip, sardonic, or otherwise supposedly witty approaches to race, but I think it can be refined. For one thing, while most white practitioners of hipster racism do mean on the surface to denigrate another's race or ethnicity, their ultimate, ironic intent is to show that they don't really mean it, and thus, that they themselves are anything but racist. This seems to be how the upcoming Pauly Shore movie that I wrote about recently works, and as the clip below illustrates, it's sometimes how "The Daily Show" works.
The following skit, with John Oliver "traveling" to Kenya, is a good example. The segment begins as a trip meant to inform ignorant American viewers about the country that helped produce Barack Obama. When Oliver sits down with Zachary Muburi-Muita, the Kenyan Ambassador to the United Nations, the skit devolves instead into a sad instance of hipster racism, with Oliver playing a British moron who has no sense of what was wrong with England's racist colonial rule of Kenya.
As you watch, notice how at one point, when Muburi-Muita tells him that what's he's saying is "not funny," Oliver keeps going. In effect, a non-white voice of protest goes ignored and disrespected. Viewers hear Muburi-Muita's protest, but in the context of the skit, they're invited to laugh at it, and thus disrespect the person delivering it--"He can't even see that Oliver's joking! Look how far Oliver is willing to push this joke!"
As with other forms of satire, this type of humor goes wrong when it goes too far. In terms of race, one way that hipster humorists can go too far is by using people of color, who may or may not be in on the joke, as mere props in their own performance. By pretending to ignore the Kenyan ambassador's indignant response to a mock colonialist attitude, John Oliver demonstrates this failure. Whether the ambassador is in on the joke or not, the skit invites viewers to disregard and laugh at his perspective. That perspective is also trivialized because it's being used in a skit that's all about the performance of the white person at the center.
Self-reflecting irony of this sort is a crucial element of the hipster attitude, and as I understand it, hipster racism often arises in attempts at ironic humor. As Oliver demonstrates, this type of humor consists of acting like some sort of clueless, offensive bigot--be it a racist, a sexist, or a homophobe--for an audience that's supposed to know that you yourself are not really a bigot. You tell racist jokes or say and do racist things, but you're really making fun of bigots, so the humor is a supposedly legitimate form of satire.
White hipster humor about race is often meant to point out racism, but not in order to fight against it; the goal instead is ultimately narcissistic. The performance is an effort to get laughs, but it's also the comedians' self-centered effort to show that underneath it all, they themselves are not racists. This form of humor thus does little to dislodge the obstinate centrality of whiteness, because again, it's really all about the supposedly non-racist white performer, and not about the abuses endured by the targets of racism.
White people have a long history of defining themselves in opposition to the supposed inherent qualities of other races. When white people defined non-white people as savages, or as hypersexual, unintelligent or enslaved, they also defined themselves as the superior opposite--as civilized, restrained, intelligent, and free. In the same way, many white interactions with non-white people continue to be narcissistic, because they use non-white people to reflect back in a self-defining way on themselves.
When white hipster humorists perform a racial identity that involves interaction with non-white people, it's often all about the white person at the center. Using people of color so that you can pretend to be a racist in order to get laughs because you're mocking racists is not a genuinely respectful and anti-racist form of racial interaction. Instead, it's a way of acting in an ultimately racist manner, by using overt racism to suggest covertly, but falsely, that you yourself would never do anything racist. And since it's all really about you, and you're just using people of color for your own self-defining purposes, it amounts to little more than white self-centeredness all over again.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Best and Worse of White North Carolinians
'Socialist,' 'Muslim' — Ugly reception for Obama
By: Politico Staff
October 19, 2008 03:56 PM EST
Barack Obama's stop at Cape Fear BBQ and Chicken in Fayetteville, N.C., this afternoon underscored the continued resistance of some voters to his candidacy — and his identity. The trip, according to a pool report, offered “some powerful and at times ugly interaction.”
Campaigning in a traditionally Republican state, the Democratic nominee found lots of supporters of John McCain, at least one woman who believes the Illinois senator is a "closet Muslim" — and another who repeatedly shouted “Socialist.”
The following is a compilation of pool reports from print, TV and wire reporters who accompanied Obama to the diner:
Obama arrived at the barbecue joint around 12:30 p.m., where an older and majority white clientele of several dozen were eating lunch after church services. Many patrons applauded as he walked into the diner, but Diane Fanning, 54, began yelling “Socialist, socialist, socialist — get out of here!”
Obama did not look directly at her, as she was across the diner, but it was loud enough that he most likely heard her.
The gentleman next to Fanning, Lenox Bramble, 76, flashed an angry look at her. “Be civil, be courteous,” he admonished her. Another woman, Cecilia Hayslip, 61, yelled back at Fanning (per Reuters), “At least he’s not a warmonger!”
Bramble told Reuters’ pooler that he wasn’t voting for Obama because he didn’t think he had enough experience. Bramble’s wife, Kit, 75, said after meeting Obama, “He was very nice,” but added she’d been a conservative Republican since Barry Goldwater’s era and said she wouldn’t vote for Obama.
Fanning said she’d heard that former Secretary of State Colin Powell had endorsed Obama but said that “Colin Powell is a RINO, R-I-N-O, Republican In Name Only.”
Later, Obama came to the long table where Fanning and other members of a local First Presbyterian church were gathered. He held out his hand to her and asked, “How are you, ma’am?” but she declined to shake his hand.
Fanning asked Obama about a North American union, and Obama responded: “Well, you know, I am opposed to it if it were happening. But it doesn’t seem to be actually be happening. The truth of the matter is there is no plans. I’ve talked to a lot of people, including folks down in Texas. There’s no plan to create a common government between Mexico, U.S. and Canada. That’s just not … that’s just not happening. I know some people have been hearing rumors about it. But as far as I can tell, that’s just not something that’s happening. We would never give up our sovereignty in that way. Any other questions?
In an interview, Fanning said, “I still think he’s a closet Muslim.”
Obama spoke at length with many of the others parishioners at the long banquet table and got a much friendlier reception as he spoke about health care, taxes and Social Security. Fanning told your pooler, “Some of ‘em are just nicer than I am. I know how some of ‘em think.”
But several of her fellow churchgoers said their support was genuine.
Betty Waylett, 76, told Obama, “You’re doing a great job.” She told your pooler that she is a Republican but that she will vote for Obama because she likes the way he speaks and his manner. Waylett, who is white, said Obama’s race is not a factor. “I never thought about it one way or the other.”
Pastor Randal Bremer, also at the table, said Obama told him, “Whether you vote for me or not, I’ll need your prayers.”
“I’m very impressed by his ability to meet people on a down-to-earth level,” Bremer said in an interview. He said that he would pray for Obama but that he planned to vote for McCain, mostly because he prefers smaller government and McCain’s position on the Iraq war. He thinks there have been important gains in Iraq, and “I don’t want to see that damaged by a premature pullout.”
Mike Long, 33, a first-time voter in furniture sales, said after talking with Obama about health care that he’d gone from less than 50 percent likely to vote for him to “98 percent” likely.
Sheila Evans, 39, who is biracial, told Obama, “I’m so proud of you.” She told your pooler Obama had chosen a restaurant frequented more by whites, while one a couple of doors down had predominantly African-American diners on Sundays.
But some of the other older white diners looked surprised and slightly uncomfortable as Obama stopped at their tables to shake hands. “I’m surprised, but I’m not going to say anything else,” said Pat Smith, who was joined by her husband.
A group of six retired women said they were mostly Democrats — but mostly undecided about how to vote.
“I have to pray about it, think about what’s best for our country,” said Dorothy Buie, one of the women.
Obama ordered some food to go for himself and his aides. They ordered chicken, collards, baked beans, slaw and wings. The tab was $13.91. The visit lasted about half an hour.
© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC
By: Politico Staff
October 19, 2008 03:56 PM EST
Barack Obama's stop at Cape Fear BBQ and Chicken in Fayetteville, N.C., this afternoon underscored the continued resistance of some voters to his candidacy — and his identity. The trip, according to a pool report, offered “some powerful and at times ugly interaction.”
Campaigning in a traditionally Republican state, the Democratic nominee found lots of supporters of John McCain, at least one woman who believes the Illinois senator is a "closet Muslim" — and another who repeatedly shouted “Socialist.”
The following is a compilation of pool reports from print, TV and wire reporters who accompanied Obama to the diner:
Obama arrived at the barbecue joint around 12:30 p.m., where an older and majority white clientele of several dozen were eating lunch after church services. Many patrons applauded as he walked into the diner, but Diane Fanning, 54, began yelling “Socialist, socialist, socialist — get out of here!”
Obama did not look directly at her, as she was across the diner, but it was loud enough that he most likely heard her.
The gentleman next to Fanning, Lenox Bramble, 76, flashed an angry look at her. “Be civil, be courteous,” he admonished her. Another woman, Cecilia Hayslip, 61, yelled back at Fanning (per Reuters), “At least he’s not a warmonger!”
Bramble told Reuters’ pooler that he wasn’t voting for Obama because he didn’t think he had enough experience. Bramble’s wife, Kit, 75, said after meeting Obama, “He was very nice,” but added she’d been a conservative Republican since Barry Goldwater’s era and said she wouldn’t vote for Obama.
Fanning said she’d heard that former Secretary of State Colin Powell had endorsed Obama but said that “Colin Powell is a RINO, R-I-N-O, Republican In Name Only.”
Later, Obama came to the long table where Fanning and other members of a local First Presbyterian church were gathered. He held out his hand to her and asked, “How are you, ma’am?” but she declined to shake his hand.
Fanning asked Obama about a North American union, and Obama responded: “Well, you know, I am opposed to it if it were happening. But it doesn’t seem to be actually be happening. The truth of the matter is there is no plans. I’ve talked to a lot of people, including folks down in Texas. There’s no plan to create a common government between Mexico, U.S. and Canada. That’s just not … that’s just not happening. I know some people have been hearing rumors about it. But as far as I can tell, that’s just not something that’s happening. We would never give up our sovereignty in that way. Any other questions?
In an interview, Fanning said, “I still think he’s a closet Muslim.”
Obama spoke at length with many of the others parishioners at the long banquet table and got a much friendlier reception as he spoke about health care, taxes and Social Security. Fanning told your pooler, “Some of ‘em are just nicer than I am. I know how some of ‘em think.”
But several of her fellow churchgoers said their support was genuine.
Betty Waylett, 76, told Obama, “You’re doing a great job.” She told your pooler that she is a Republican but that she will vote for Obama because she likes the way he speaks and his manner. Waylett, who is white, said Obama’s race is not a factor. “I never thought about it one way or the other.”
Pastor Randal Bremer, also at the table, said Obama told him, “Whether you vote for me or not, I’ll need your prayers.”
“I’m very impressed by his ability to meet people on a down-to-earth level,” Bremer said in an interview. He said that he would pray for Obama but that he planned to vote for McCain, mostly because he prefers smaller government and McCain’s position on the Iraq war. He thinks there have been important gains in Iraq, and “I don’t want to see that damaged by a premature pullout.”
Mike Long, 33, a first-time voter in furniture sales, said after talking with Obama about health care that he’d gone from less than 50 percent likely to vote for him to “98 percent” likely.
Sheila Evans, 39, who is biracial, told Obama, “I’m so proud of you.” She told your pooler Obama had chosen a restaurant frequented more by whites, while one a couple of doors down had predominantly African-American diners on Sundays.
But some of the other older white diners looked surprised and slightly uncomfortable as Obama stopped at their tables to shake hands. “I’m surprised, but I’m not going to say anything else,” said Pat Smith, who was joined by her husband.
A group of six retired women said they were mostly Democrats — but mostly undecided about how to vote.
“I have to pray about it, think about what’s best for our country,” said Dorothy Buie, one of the women.
Obama ordered some food to go for himself and his aides. They ordered chicken, collards, baked beans, slaw and wings. The tab was $13.91. The visit lasted about half an hour.
© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC
Thursday, October 16, 2008
And Here's Another Thing
White rural Americans, or just plain ole white Americans everywhere, if you want people to stop thinking you're racist, stop acting racist.
Read this recent post for help.
Read this recent post for help.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Racism Without Racists.
Very informative article. Well . . . not so much for me because I already know this stuff. But, it's information white Americans need to stop running from. - No1KState
October 5, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Racism Without Racists
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
One of the fallacies this election season is that if Barack Obama is paying an electoral price for his skin tone, it must be because of racists.
On the contrary, the evidence is that Senator Obama is facing what scholars have dubbed “racism without racists.”
The racism is difficult to measure, but a careful survey completed last month by Stanford University, with The Associated Press and Yahoo, suggested that Mr. Obama’s support would be about six percentage points higher if he were white. That’s significant but surmountable.
Most of the lost votes aren’t those of dyed-in-the-wool racists. Such racists account for perhaps 10 percent of the electorate and, polling suggests, are mostly conservatives who would not vote for any Democratic presidential candidate.
Rather, most of the votes that Mr. Obama actually loses belong to well-meaning whites who believe in racial equality and have no objection to electing a black person as president — yet who discriminate unconsciously.
“When we fixate on the racist individual, we’re focused on the least interesting way that race works,” said Phillip Goff, a social psychologist at U.C.L.A. who focuses his research on “racism without racists.” “Most of the way race functions is without the need for racial animus.”
For decades, experiments have shown that even many whites who earnestly believe in equal rights will recommend hiring a white job candidate more often than a person with identical credentials who is black. In the experiments, the applicant’s folder sometimes presents the person as white, sometimes as black, but everything else is the same. The white person thinks that he or she is selecting on the basis of nonracial factors like experience.
Research suggests that whites are particularly likely to discriminate against blacks when choices are not clear-cut and competing arguments are flying about — in other words, in ambiguous circumstances rather like an electoral campaign.
For example, when the black job candidate is highly qualified, there is no discrimination. Yet in a more muddled gray area where reasonable people could disagree, unconscious discrimination plays a major role.
White participants recommend hiring a white applicant with borderline qualifications 76 percent of the time, while recommending an identically qualified black applicant only 45 percent of the time.
John Dovidio, a psychologist at Yale University who has conducted this study over many years, noted that conscious prejudice as measured in surveys has declined over time. But unconscious discrimination — what psychologists call aversive racism — has stayed fairly constant.
“In the U.S., there’s a small percentage of people who in nationwide surveys say they won’t vote for a qualified black presidential candidate,” Professor Dovidio said. “But a bigger factor is the aversive racists, those who don’t think that they’re racist.”
Faced with a complex decision, he said, aversive racists feel doubts about a black person that they don’t feel about an identical white. “These doubts tend to be attributed not to the person’s race — because that would be racism — but deflected to other areas that can be talked about, such as lack of experience,” he added.
Of course, there are perfectly legitimate reasons to be against a particular black candidate, Mr. Obama included. Opposition to Mr. Obama is no more evidence of racism than opposition to Mr. McCain is evidence of discrimination against the elderly or against war veterans. And at times, Mr. Obama’s race helps him: it underscores his message of change, it appeals to some whites as a demonstration of their open-mindedness, and it wins him overwhelming black votes and turnout.
Still, a huge array of research suggests that 50 percent or more of whites have unconscious biases that sometimes lead to racial discrimination. (Blacks have their own unconscious biases, surprisingly often against blacks as well.)
One set of experiments conducted since the 1970s involves subjects who believe that they are witnessing an emergency (like an epileptic seizure). When there is no other witness, a white bystander will call for help whether the victim is white or black, and there is very little discrimination.
But when there are other bystanders, so the individual responsibility to summon help may feel less obvious, whites will still summon help 75 percent of the time if the victim is white but only 38 percent of the time if the victim is black.
One lesson from this research is that racial biases are deeply embedded within us, more so than many whites believe. But another lesson, a historical one, is that we can overcome unconscious bias. That’s what happened with the decline in prejudice against Catholics after the candidacy of John F. Kennedy in 1960.
It just might happen again, this time with race.
October 5, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Racism Without Racists
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
One of the fallacies this election season is that if Barack Obama is paying an electoral price for his skin tone, it must be because of racists.
On the contrary, the evidence is that Senator Obama is facing what scholars have dubbed “racism without racists.”
The racism is difficult to measure, but a careful survey completed last month by Stanford University, with The Associated Press and Yahoo, suggested that Mr. Obama’s support would be about six percentage points higher if he were white. That’s significant but surmountable.
Most of the lost votes aren’t those of dyed-in-the-wool racists. Such racists account for perhaps 10 percent of the electorate and, polling suggests, are mostly conservatives who would not vote for any Democratic presidential candidate.
Rather, most of the votes that Mr. Obama actually loses belong to well-meaning whites who believe in racial equality and have no objection to electing a black person as president — yet who discriminate unconsciously.
“When we fixate on the racist individual, we’re focused on the least interesting way that race works,” said Phillip Goff, a social psychologist at U.C.L.A. who focuses his research on “racism without racists.” “Most of the way race functions is without the need for racial animus.”
For decades, experiments have shown that even many whites who earnestly believe in equal rights will recommend hiring a white job candidate more often than a person with identical credentials who is black. In the experiments, the applicant’s folder sometimes presents the person as white, sometimes as black, but everything else is the same. The white person thinks that he or she is selecting on the basis of nonracial factors like experience.
Research suggests that whites are particularly likely to discriminate against blacks when choices are not clear-cut and competing arguments are flying about — in other words, in ambiguous circumstances rather like an electoral campaign.
For example, when the black job candidate is highly qualified, there is no discrimination. Yet in a more muddled gray area where reasonable people could disagree, unconscious discrimination plays a major role.
White participants recommend hiring a white applicant with borderline qualifications 76 percent of the time, while recommending an identically qualified black applicant only 45 percent of the time.
John Dovidio, a psychologist at Yale University who has conducted this study over many years, noted that conscious prejudice as measured in surveys has declined over time. But unconscious discrimination — what psychologists call aversive racism — has stayed fairly constant.
“In the U.S., there’s a small percentage of people who in nationwide surveys say they won’t vote for a qualified black presidential candidate,” Professor Dovidio said. “But a bigger factor is the aversive racists, those who don’t think that they’re racist.”
Faced with a complex decision, he said, aversive racists feel doubts about a black person that they don’t feel about an identical white. “These doubts tend to be attributed not to the person’s race — because that would be racism — but deflected to other areas that can be talked about, such as lack of experience,” he added.
Of course, there are perfectly legitimate reasons to be against a particular black candidate, Mr. Obama included. Opposition to Mr. Obama is no more evidence of racism than opposition to Mr. McCain is evidence of discrimination against the elderly or against war veterans. And at times, Mr. Obama’s race helps him: it underscores his message of change, it appeals to some whites as a demonstration of their open-mindedness, and it wins him overwhelming black votes and turnout.
Still, a huge array of research suggests that 50 percent or more of whites have unconscious biases that sometimes lead to racial discrimination. (Blacks have their own unconscious biases, surprisingly often against blacks as well.)
One set of experiments conducted since the 1970s involves subjects who believe that they are witnessing an emergency (like an epileptic seizure). When there is no other witness, a white bystander will call for help whether the victim is white or black, and there is very little discrimination.
But when there are other bystanders, so the individual responsibility to summon help may feel less obvious, whites will still summon help 75 percent of the time if the victim is white but only 38 percent of the time if the victim is black.
One lesson from this research is that racial biases are deeply embedded within us, more so than many whites believe. But another lesson, a historical one, is that we can overcome unconscious bias. That’s what happened with the decline in prejudice against Catholics after the candidacy of John F. Kennedy in 1960.
It just might happen again, this time with race.
Monday, July 21, 2008
I Am a Big Tim Wise Fan
The man knows his stuff. His style can be edgy. He's good.
He kind of has the cadence of a black preacher, so it's a bit dissonant to hear Sunday morning coming from a white guy. He's good.
He kind of has the cadence of a black preacher, so it's a bit dissonant to hear Sunday morning coming from a white guy. He's good.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Adding Insult to Injury
Adding Insult to Injury: Race, Disaster and the Calculus of Comparative Suffering
Previously (and briefly) titled, "The Ugly Side of Disaster: Racism and the Calculus of Comparative Suffering"
By Tim Wise
June 20, 2008
crossposted at The Red Room
Disasters bring out the best and worst in people.
On the one hand, millions of folks respond to the suffering of their fellow human beings with compassion, concern, and even significant financial assistance when needed. Be it a hurricane, an earthquake, tornadoes or the recent massive flooding in the Midwestern United States, the hearts, minds, and often wallets of large numbers of the nation's people are with those in need.
And on the other hand, there's Rush Limbaugh, who has decided to use the flooding in Iowa not to demonstrate compassion, but as an opportunity to make derogatory statements about poor black folks: specifically those caught by the flooding in New Orleans after Katrina in 2005.
This week, as folks in Iowa, Indiana and parts of Illinois have watched flood waters rise ever higher, Limbaugh took to the air to contrast these supposedly good and decent people who have joined forces to help each other, with the presumably evil, lazy and violent folks of New Orleans, who we are told, did nothing but foment criminality and wait for the government to save them during flooding there in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Thus, we have his statement of a few days ago, in which he noted that in the midst of the devastation in the Midwest:
Sadly it isn't only Limbaugh who has been making these kinds of comparisons. Millions of us have also been subjected to the e-blast missives making the rounds, which seek to contrast the law-abiding, God-fearing, and (let us not forget) mostly white farming folks of the Midwest to the black, urban, and congenitally defective folks of the Big Easy. If you haven't received something like this from a friend, relative or co-worker yet, just wait, because you probably will soon.
But what all of these like-minded rants indicate--whether spewed to 20 million pliant sheep via the airwaves, or posted on a pathetic little blog read by no one--is the dishonesty of those offering them up. Either that, or the fundamental ineptitude of the same when it comes to doing basic research, fact-checking, or merely paying attention to the fundamental differences between the flooding of New Orleans and that of rural and small town Iowa communities.
Among the differences that should be readily apparent to almost anyone, consider:
In New Orleans, residents were kept from escaping, literally forced back into the city by armed police from a neighboring community. Nothing like this has happened in Iowa.
In New Orleans, relief agencies like the Red Cross were prohibited from entering the city, thanks to an order from the Department of Homeland Security, which feared that the provision of relief would delay evacuation. In other words, the suffering was heightened deliberately by government order, as noted on the Red Cross website, as early as September 2, 2005. Nothing like this has happened in Iowa.
In New Orleans, those stuck in the flood zone (tens of thousands in all) were herded into the Superdome and Convention Center, where there was no air conditioning (at the hottest time of the year in that city), no food, and little or no water. When those who were trapped (and who would wait for three full days before any serious assistance arrived) tried to get to the food in the pantries of the Convention Center (food that would have gone bad or been written off anyway), they were met by guns, pointed at them by members of the National Guard, who warned them to "step away from the food or we'll blow your fucking heads off." Nothing like this has happened in Iowa.
In New Orleans, there are very few escape routes out of the city, as anyone who has spent much time there can attest. The only artery capable of handling a significant number of vehicles is Interstate 10, heading west or east. In the Midwestern flood zones, there are far more escape routes, far fewer people to get evacuated, and the flooding was a slow and steady process, unlike the rapid inundation in New Orleans, which happened quickly after the overtopping of inadequately constructed levees.
In New Orleans, according to data in the 2004 and 2006 American Community Surveys, conducted by the Census Bureau, residents were about four times as likely as their Iowa counterparts not to have access to a vehicle that could facilitate their escape from the flood zone. Whereas more than 21 percent of New Orleanians were without access to a car at the time of Katrina, only 6 percent of folks in Black Hawk County (home to hard-hit Cedar Falls, Iowa) and 5 percent of those in Linn County (home to flooded Cedar Rapids--the biggest city affected by the latest deluge) were carless. To put the importance of not having a vehicle in stark terms, 38,000 households in New Orleans, comprising approximately 100,000 people, were without a car, and thus, unable to flee on their own.
And of course, in New Orleans, FEMA was nowhere to be seen for several days, whereas, in the Midwest, residents report that FEMA was on the ground in many communities even before floodwaters overtopped levees there, and have responded quickly and effectively, all things considered, since. (This is a point worth making, since Limbaugh also insisted that Midwesterners, unlike New Orleanians, weren't "whining" and crying "where's FEMA?" Fact is, they didn't need to ask, because the government responded rapidly this time around).
But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Limbaugh and like-minded screeds has been the speed with which they have descended into the pit of racist myth in order to bash the people of New Orleans once again, much as they were doing in August and September of 2005. To wit, the repeated references to looting, rapes, murders, shooting at helicopters and other assorted mayhem by New Orleans' black folks, nearly all of which claims have been discredited as utterly false, almost from the time they were first concocted.
So consider Limbaugh's formulation, where he says, "I don't see a bunch of people running around waving guns at helicopters, I don't see a bunch of people running shooting cops. I don't see a bunch of people raping people on the street."
Fair enough. Those things aren't happening in Iowa. Yet, according to multiple post-Katrina investigations, and stories written up by the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, the New Orleans Times Picayune, the Guardian (London), the New York Times, Popular Mechanics, Reason Magazine and the American Journalism Review, they weren't happening in New Orleans either. Reports of shooting at helicopters, or rapes or murders were almost entirely false. There were no murders in the evacuation centers, few if any sexual assaults (and none on the street as Limbaugh claimed), no helicopters fired on, and no police officers shot by residents. Yes, there was looting, although by a distinct minority of persons trapped in the city, and overwhelmingly for necessities like food, medicine, water,and clothing to replace the rotting, soaked rags people were wearing after wading through waist-deep water. And according to persons on the ground in the flood zone, even the luxury items taken were typically used as barter chips, to get rides out of the city for oneself and one's family when it became obvious that large scale assistance wasn't going to arrive any time soon. In other words, reports of widespread thuggery in New Orleans during the flooding have been greatly exaggerated, if not entirely fabricated, and have only remained believable to millions because of the race and class biases that allow people to believe the worst about poor black folks even without a shred of actual evidence.
Oh, and not to put too fine a point on it, but the notion that there has been no looting in the Midwest, presumably because white rural folk are more civilized than their black and urban counterparts is demonstrably untrue. There have been several reports of theft in Columbus, Indiana, for instance--mostly people taking things out of folks' front yards that have been left out to dry--and in Cedar Rapids, police recently made their first looting arrest (though there have been other reports of theft as well), of a white woman who was stealing alcohol from a local bar.
And while Limbaugh and others praise Midwesterners for pulling together in a spirit of cooperation--as opposed to the animalistic chaos we are to envision when thinking of New Orleanians during Katrina--the fact is there were innumerable acts of kindness in the streets of New Orleans as well. Those who personally brought supplies to the thousands trapped downtown reported little if any fighting or random anger amongst the assembled; rather, they saw persons trying to shade the elderly, and make sure that old folks and the very young had first dibs on what little relief supplies were dribbling in. But the media focused on none of that, choosing instead to highlight reports--false as they turned out to be--of mass violence.
Then of course have been the suggestions, especially common in the e-blasts and blog postings to the effect that Iowans, unlike New Orleanians, have helped themselves, because while the latter had grown dependent on government to solve their problems, Midwesterners in the "heart of America" still value the importance of self-reliance. But the fact is, Iowans are no less likely to receive government assistance than those in New Orleans were prior to Hurricane Katrina, according to the Census Bureau's American Community Surveys, taken in 2006 (the most recent year available) and 2004 (the last data collected for New Orleans before the flooding of that city).
In hard-hit Linn County Iowa, 2400 households receive cash public assistance, out of 85,000 total households, meaning that 2.8 percent of all households in the County receive cash welfare. In New Orleans, prior to Katrina, and contrary to popular belief, only 2.6 percent of households received cash welfare (4600 households out of 180,000). So in truth, a slightly higher percentage of Linn Countians were on the dole than New Orleanians. In Black Hawk County (also hard hit by the recent deluge), 2.5 percent of all households receive cash assistance: again, suggesting no real difference between the mostly white and rural folks there, and the mostly black and urban folks in Orleans Parish at the time of Katrina.
And it should be noted, the average amount of welfare received in the Iowa counties was higher than that for recipients in New Orleans. So whereas the average annual amount of cash assistance received in New Orleans prior to Katrina was only $2800, in Linn County it's $3200 and in Black Hawk County, the average amount received is over $4600. Bottom line: those supposedly harder-working, more self-reliant white folks in the heartland are just as likely to receive public assistance as black folks in New Orleans, and when they do, they actually get more than the latter in raw dollar terms.
As with cash, food stamp participation is roughly the same in the hard hit Iowa counties as in New Orleans before Katrina. In 2004, about 11 percent of New Orleans households received food stamps, as did 8 percent of Linn County households and 10 percent of Black Hawk County households in 2006.
In addition to traditional government assistance, let it also be remembered that Iowans are quite dependent on another form of public handout: agricultural subsidies. Indeed, Iowa--that place of hard working, self-reliant folks who are now being contrasted with the supposedly government-dependent laggards in New Orleans--receives the second highest amount of agricultural crop subsidies of any state in the country, according to data compiled by the Environmental Working Group. From 1995-2006, Iowa farmers raked in $16 billion in subsidies, with 7 in 10 farmers in the state receiving some form of subsidy from the federal government. Even those small family farmers at the bottom of the subsidy pile, who receive far less than the large corporate giants who take a disproportionate amount of the loot, still received a little more than $2000 per household: not much less than the amount received in cash welfare by those in New Orleans, prior to Katrina, who received such assistance.
To put the amounts received from government in perspective, in Black Hawk County, farmers get about $15 million in crop subsidies, while in Linn County the annual take is about $17 million. In New Orleans, prior to Katrina, residents there were receiving about $13 million per year in cash assistance under the program for dependent children and their mothers. So putting aside the cash welfare received by Iowans, which as noted above was actually more, per household, than that received by New Orleanians, crop subsidies indicate that Iowans were and are more government dependent than the residents of New Orleans, no matter what the racist and classist perceptions of the general public may be.
So here we are: a nation potentially on the precipice of electing a man of color as president, being told by media pundits and others that this fact demonstrates above all else how Americans have "transcended race," and put aside the old animosities and bigotries of the past. Yet, at the first opportunity, we see right-wing gasbags striving to perpetuate the stereotypes, the false urban legends, and the deceptive rhetoric of racism to score points with their readers and listeners. And if the speed with which such venal propaganda is making its way around the web is any indication, the smear campaign seems to be working.
Just one more piece of evidence that this nation has transcended nothing when it comes to race and racism. Just one more clear indication that the success of Barack Obama says little in terms of what millions of white folks still believe about the majority of black folks with whom we share a nation. So long as entire communities can be pathologized in the minds of the masses, thanks to the efforts of unresearched know-nothings like Rush, the ability of individuals of color to rise to positions of authority will say virtually nothing about the larger illness of racism and its continued salience.
Only when white folks stand up to the Limbaughs of the world--only when we see challenging white racism as our burden, our responsibility, and as a fundamental part of what we need to do in the realm of that vaunted "self-help" we're always preaching to others--will things likely change. We've been silent too long, and our silence implicates us, just as Rush's bombast indicts him, in the spread of this sickness known as racism. It is well past time to leave collaboration behind.
SOURCE NOTE:
All census data and data on public assistance levels and vehicle access comes from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Surveys for 2004 and 2006, available at, Census Bureau American Community Survey Database. Once into the databases, information for Linn County, Black Hawk County, or New Orleans (entered either as New Orleans city or Orleans Parish) can be retrieved by entering the county/city and state name in the search function box and then following the various links for demographic, income and housing data that appear.
Previously (and briefly) titled, "The Ugly Side of Disaster: Racism and the Calculus of Comparative Suffering"
By Tim Wise
June 20, 2008
crossposted at The Red Room
Disasters bring out the best and worst in people.
On the one hand, millions of folks respond to the suffering of their fellow human beings with compassion, concern, and even significant financial assistance when needed. Be it a hurricane, an earthquake, tornadoes or the recent massive flooding in the Midwestern United States, the hearts, minds, and often wallets of large numbers of the nation's people are with those in need.
And on the other hand, there's Rush Limbaugh, who has decided to use the flooding in Iowa not to demonstrate compassion, but as an opportunity to make derogatory statements about poor black folks: specifically those caught by the flooding in New Orleans after Katrina in 2005.
This week, as folks in Iowa, Indiana and parts of Illinois have watched flood waters rise ever higher, Limbaugh took to the air to contrast these supposedly good and decent people who have joined forces to help each other, with the presumably evil, lazy and violent folks of New Orleans, who we are told, did nothing but foment criminality and wait for the government to save them during flooding there in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Thus, we have his statement of a few days ago, in which he noted that in the midst of the devastation in the Midwest:
"I see people working together. I see people trying to save their property...I don't see a bunch of people running around waving guns at helicopters. I don't see a bunch of people running shooting cops. I don't see a bunch of people raping people on the street...I see the heartland of America. When I look at Iowa and when I look at Illinois, I see the backbone of America."
Sadly it isn't only Limbaugh who has been making these kinds of comparisons. Millions of us have also been subjected to the e-blast missives making the rounds, which seek to contrast the law-abiding, God-fearing, and (let us not forget) mostly white farming folks of the Midwest to the black, urban, and congenitally defective folks of the Big Easy. If you haven't received something like this from a friend, relative or co-worker yet, just wait, because you probably will soon.
But what all of these like-minded rants indicate--whether spewed to 20 million pliant sheep via the airwaves, or posted on a pathetic little blog read by no one--is the dishonesty of those offering them up. Either that, or the fundamental ineptitude of the same when it comes to doing basic research, fact-checking, or merely paying attention to the fundamental differences between the flooding of New Orleans and that of rural and small town Iowa communities.
Among the differences that should be readily apparent to almost anyone, consider:
In New Orleans, residents were kept from escaping, literally forced back into the city by armed police from a neighboring community. Nothing like this has happened in Iowa.
In New Orleans, relief agencies like the Red Cross were prohibited from entering the city, thanks to an order from the Department of Homeland Security, which feared that the provision of relief would delay evacuation. In other words, the suffering was heightened deliberately by government order, as noted on the Red Cross website, as early as September 2, 2005. Nothing like this has happened in Iowa.
In New Orleans, those stuck in the flood zone (tens of thousands in all) were herded into the Superdome and Convention Center, where there was no air conditioning (at the hottest time of the year in that city), no food, and little or no water. When those who were trapped (and who would wait for three full days before any serious assistance arrived) tried to get to the food in the pantries of the Convention Center (food that would have gone bad or been written off anyway), they were met by guns, pointed at them by members of the National Guard, who warned them to "step away from the food or we'll blow your fucking heads off." Nothing like this has happened in Iowa.
In New Orleans, there are very few escape routes out of the city, as anyone who has spent much time there can attest. The only artery capable of handling a significant number of vehicles is Interstate 10, heading west or east. In the Midwestern flood zones, there are far more escape routes, far fewer people to get evacuated, and the flooding was a slow and steady process, unlike the rapid inundation in New Orleans, which happened quickly after the overtopping of inadequately constructed levees.
In New Orleans, according to data in the 2004 and 2006 American Community Surveys, conducted by the Census Bureau, residents were about four times as likely as their Iowa counterparts not to have access to a vehicle that could facilitate their escape from the flood zone. Whereas more than 21 percent of New Orleanians were without access to a car at the time of Katrina, only 6 percent of folks in Black Hawk County (home to hard-hit Cedar Falls, Iowa) and 5 percent of those in Linn County (home to flooded Cedar Rapids--the biggest city affected by the latest deluge) were carless. To put the importance of not having a vehicle in stark terms, 38,000 households in New Orleans, comprising approximately 100,000 people, were without a car, and thus, unable to flee on their own.
And of course, in New Orleans, FEMA was nowhere to be seen for several days, whereas, in the Midwest, residents report that FEMA was on the ground in many communities even before floodwaters overtopped levees there, and have responded quickly and effectively, all things considered, since. (This is a point worth making, since Limbaugh also insisted that Midwesterners, unlike New Orleanians, weren't "whining" and crying "where's FEMA?" Fact is, they didn't need to ask, because the government responded rapidly this time around).
But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Limbaugh and like-minded screeds has been the speed with which they have descended into the pit of racist myth in order to bash the people of New Orleans once again, much as they were doing in August and September of 2005. To wit, the repeated references to looting, rapes, murders, shooting at helicopters and other assorted mayhem by New Orleans' black folks, nearly all of which claims have been discredited as utterly false, almost from the time they were first concocted.
So consider Limbaugh's formulation, where he says, "I don't see a bunch of people running around waving guns at helicopters, I don't see a bunch of people running shooting cops. I don't see a bunch of people raping people on the street."
Fair enough. Those things aren't happening in Iowa. Yet, according to multiple post-Katrina investigations, and stories written up by the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, the New Orleans Times Picayune, the Guardian (London), the New York Times, Popular Mechanics, Reason Magazine and the American Journalism Review, they weren't happening in New Orleans either. Reports of shooting at helicopters, or rapes or murders were almost entirely false. There were no murders in the evacuation centers, few if any sexual assaults (and none on the street as Limbaugh claimed), no helicopters fired on, and no police officers shot by residents. Yes, there was looting, although by a distinct minority of persons trapped in the city, and overwhelmingly for necessities like food, medicine, water,and clothing to replace the rotting, soaked rags people were wearing after wading through waist-deep water. And according to persons on the ground in the flood zone, even the luxury items taken were typically used as barter chips, to get rides out of the city for oneself and one's family when it became obvious that large scale assistance wasn't going to arrive any time soon. In other words, reports of widespread thuggery in New Orleans during the flooding have been greatly exaggerated, if not entirely fabricated, and have only remained believable to millions because of the race and class biases that allow people to believe the worst about poor black folks even without a shred of actual evidence.
Oh, and not to put too fine a point on it, but the notion that there has been no looting in the Midwest, presumably because white rural folk are more civilized than their black and urban counterparts is demonstrably untrue. There have been several reports of theft in Columbus, Indiana, for instance--mostly people taking things out of folks' front yards that have been left out to dry--and in Cedar Rapids, police recently made their first looting arrest (though there have been other reports of theft as well), of a white woman who was stealing alcohol from a local bar.
And while Limbaugh and others praise Midwesterners for pulling together in a spirit of cooperation--as opposed to the animalistic chaos we are to envision when thinking of New Orleanians during Katrina--the fact is there were innumerable acts of kindness in the streets of New Orleans as well. Those who personally brought supplies to the thousands trapped downtown reported little if any fighting or random anger amongst the assembled; rather, they saw persons trying to shade the elderly, and make sure that old folks and the very young had first dibs on what little relief supplies were dribbling in. But the media focused on none of that, choosing instead to highlight reports--false as they turned out to be--of mass violence.
Then of course have been the suggestions, especially common in the e-blasts and blog postings to the effect that Iowans, unlike New Orleanians, have helped themselves, because while the latter had grown dependent on government to solve their problems, Midwesterners in the "heart of America" still value the importance of self-reliance. But the fact is, Iowans are no less likely to receive government assistance than those in New Orleans were prior to Hurricane Katrina, according to the Census Bureau's American Community Surveys, taken in 2006 (the most recent year available) and 2004 (the last data collected for New Orleans before the flooding of that city).
In hard-hit Linn County Iowa, 2400 households receive cash public assistance, out of 85,000 total households, meaning that 2.8 percent of all households in the County receive cash welfare. In New Orleans, prior to Katrina, and contrary to popular belief, only 2.6 percent of households received cash welfare (4600 households out of 180,000). So in truth, a slightly higher percentage of Linn Countians were on the dole than New Orleanians. In Black Hawk County (also hard hit by the recent deluge), 2.5 percent of all households receive cash assistance: again, suggesting no real difference between the mostly white and rural folks there, and the mostly black and urban folks in Orleans Parish at the time of Katrina.
And it should be noted, the average amount of welfare received in the Iowa counties was higher than that for recipients in New Orleans. So whereas the average annual amount of cash assistance received in New Orleans prior to Katrina was only $2800, in Linn County it's $3200 and in Black Hawk County, the average amount received is over $4600. Bottom line: those supposedly harder-working, more self-reliant white folks in the heartland are just as likely to receive public assistance as black folks in New Orleans, and when they do, they actually get more than the latter in raw dollar terms.
As with cash, food stamp participation is roughly the same in the hard hit Iowa counties as in New Orleans before Katrina. In 2004, about 11 percent of New Orleans households received food stamps, as did 8 percent of Linn County households and 10 percent of Black Hawk County households in 2006.
In addition to traditional government assistance, let it also be remembered that Iowans are quite dependent on another form of public handout: agricultural subsidies. Indeed, Iowa--that place of hard working, self-reliant folks who are now being contrasted with the supposedly government-dependent laggards in New Orleans--receives the second highest amount of agricultural crop subsidies of any state in the country, according to data compiled by the Environmental Working Group. From 1995-2006, Iowa farmers raked in $16 billion in subsidies, with 7 in 10 farmers in the state receiving some form of subsidy from the federal government. Even those small family farmers at the bottom of the subsidy pile, who receive far less than the large corporate giants who take a disproportionate amount of the loot, still received a little more than $2000 per household: not much less than the amount received in cash welfare by those in New Orleans, prior to Katrina, who received such assistance.
To put the amounts received from government in perspective, in Black Hawk County, farmers get about $15 million in crop subsidies, while in Linn County the annual take is about $17 million. In New Orleans, prior to Katrina, residents there were receiving about $13 million per year in cash assistance under the program for dependent children and their mothers. So putting aside the cash welfare received by Iowans, which as noted above was actually more, per household, than that received by New Orleanians, crop subsidies indicate that Iowans were and are more government dependent than the residents of New Orleans, no matter what the racist and classist perceptions of the general public may be.
So here we are: a nation potentially on the precipice of electing a man of color as president, being told by media pundits and others that this fact demonstrates above all else how Americans have "transcended race," and put aside the old animosities and bigotries of the past. Yet, at the first opportunity, we see right-wing gasbags striving to perpetuate the stereotypes, the false urban legends, and the deceptive rhetoric of racism to score points with their readers and listeners. And if the speed with which such venal propaganda is making its way around the web is any indication, the smear campaign seems to be working.
Just one more piece of evidence that this nation has transcended nothing when it comes to race and racism. Just one more clear indication that the success of Barack Obama says little in terms of what millions of white folks still believe about the majority of black folks with whom we share a nation. So long as entire communities can be pathologized in the minds of the masses, thanks to the efforts of unresearched know-nothings like Rush, the ability of individuals of color to rise to positions of authority will say virtually nothing about the larger illness of racism and its continued salience.
Only when white folks stand up to the Limbaughs of the world--only when we see challenging white racism as our burden, our responsibility, and as a fundamental part of what we need to do in the realm of that vaunted "self-help" we're always preaching to others--will things likely change. We've been silent too long, and our silence implicates us, just as Rush's bombast indicts him, in the spread of this sickness known as racism. It is well past time to leave collaboration behind.
SOURCE NOTE:
All census data and data on public assistance levels and vehicle access comes from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Surveys for 2004 and 2006, available at, Census Bureau American Community Survey Database. Once into the databases, information for Linn County, Black Hawk County, or New Orleans (entered either as New Orleans city or Orleans Parish) can be retrieved by entering the county/city and state name in the search function box and then following the various links for demographic, income and housing data that appear.
Friday, June 20, 2008
L.A. Teachers Fired for Being Too "Afro-centric"
Yeah. You read right, folks. There're a few links with the details. But basically, it works like this:
Ostensibly, as I've learned from Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong by James W. Loewen, part of the problem with being too "Afro-centric" is that children may not love America. Oh. The horror.
This also illustrates the truth that black students don't refer to academic achievement as "acting white" for nothing. I've been there. You have to sit and listen to lies, exaggerations, denials, and half-truths, and become proficcient in reciting said lied, exagerrations, denials, and half-truths. I know did. And I hated it. This teacher shouldn't be fired. She should be given a gold medal. But her firing illustrates part of my reluctance to go into primary and secondary education. If she can get fired in Los Angeles, California for using 3-pages of the Autobiography of Malcolm X, a rap by the late Tupac Shukar, and a Langston Hughes poem, when I start teaching about the horror of slavery, the re-enslavement of African Americans after the Civil War, and the dozens of white racist riots around the country (And by that I mean, a least couple of dozens. There were probably more.), the African societies the slaves came from, the Black Freedom Movement and the backlash to the Movement - I could not just lose my job, they might even take my kids!
No, I don't have any, but you get my point. This firing is nonsense. And it's not the Los Angeles United School District that's "unique" here. Ms. Salazar is the unique one. Not many teachers take the chance she did. And kudos to her.
Here are those other links:
Feminsite
L.A. Times
VivirLatino
AngryBrownButch
Democracy Now!
A teacher in Watts, Karen Salazar, contextualized her lessons so they would be more relevant to her mostly black students. Administrators accuse her of being too "Afro-centric" and brainwashing the kids.
Ostensibly, as I've learned from Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong by James W. Loewen, part of the problem with being too "Afro-centric" is that children may not love America. Oh. The horror.
This also illustrates the truth that black students don't refer to academic achievement as "acting white" for nothing. I've been there. You have to sit and listen to lies, exaggerations, denials, and half-truths, and become proficcient in reciting said lied, exagerrations, denials, and half-truths. I know did. And I hated it. This teacher shouldn't be fired. She should be given a gold medal. But her firing illustrates part of my reluctance to go into primary and secondary education. If she can get fired in Los Angeles, California for using 3-pages of the Autobiography of Malcolm X, a rap by the late Tupac Shukar, and a Langston Hughes poem, when I start teaching about the horror of slavery, the re-enslavement of African Americans after the Civil War, and the dozens of white racist riots around the country (And by that I mean, a least couple of dozens. There were probably more.), the African societies the slaves came from, the Black Freedom Movement and the backlash to the Movement - I could not just lose my job, they might even take my kids!
No, I don't have any, but you get my point. This firing is nonsense. And it's not the Los Angeles United School District that's "unique" here. Ms. Salazar is the unique one. Not many teachers take the chance she did. And kudos to her.
Here are those other links:
Feminsite
L.A. Times
VivirLatino
AngryBrownButch
Democracy Now!
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Whitey Lies
All the hoopla about Michelle Obama's "whitey" tape has gotten to me. First off, there is no "whitey" tape. But there's more. See if you can follow me.
1 - George Jefferson called his neighbor "whitey." But nowadays, black folks don't use the term "whitey" to insult white people. Oh, we have our words and terms. In fact . . . well, just suffice it to say black folk don't go around complaining about "whitey."
2 - So, where does this "whitey" term come from? The minds and imaginations of white folks, right?
So, essentially, what we have here is a racist attack on Michelle Obama that in and of itself points out the racism endemic in America - white folks know so little about African Americans that when trying to attack one politically, they don't even know how make the lie sound realistic. But the lie gets around because so many white Americans are ready to believe the worst about any African American, including, black fathers.
Oh, Barack's Father Day speech has been on my radar. I hate that he felt it appropriate to further anti-black racism by promote the myth of the absent black father. Yeah, I said myth. Dig in the numbers and get back to me. I'll still vote for him, but less enthusiastically so.
So, were Wright and Pfleger right? Er, uh, yeah.
And by the way Fox News, that's why black women are angry, or actually pissed. We have to daily face racialized sexism and sexualized racism and just plain ole racism and sexism, and then on top of that, because of the way racism plays out in the lives of all too many black men, we gotta suffer with that, too. And, frankly, Mammie and Aunt Jemima weren't all that thrilled about America, either. I mean, really, talk about patriotism and why black women aren't always proud of this country, lets talk about the difference in the coverage of Jessica Lynch and Shoshana Johnson.
This isn't to say that Michelle Obama doesn't love or isn't proud of her country. It is to say that "whitey" doesn't have the moral ground to judge her one way or the other.
1 - George Jefferson called his neighbor "whitey." But nowadays, black folks don't use the term "whitey" to insult white people. Oh, we have our words and terms. In fact . . . well, just suffice it to say black folk don't go around complaining about "whitey."
2 - So, where does this "whitey" term come from? The minds and imaginations of white folks, right?
So, essentially, what we have here is a racist attack on Michelle Obama that in and of itself points out the racism endemic in America - white folks know so little about African Americans that when trying to attack one politically, they don't even know how make the lie sound realistic. But the lie gets around because so many white Americans are ready to believe the worst about any African American, including, black fathers.
Oh, Barack's Father Day speech has been on my radar. I hate that he felt it appropriate to further anti-black racism by promote the myth of the absent black father. Yeah, I said myth. Dig in the numbers and get back to me. I'll still vote for him, but less enthusiastically so.
So, were Wright and Pfleger right? Er, uh, yeah.
And by the way Fox News, that's why black women are angry, or actually pissed. We have to daily face racialized sexism and sexualized racism and just plain ole racism and sexism, and then on top of that, because of the way racism plays out in the lives of all too many black men, we gotta suffer with that, too. And, frankly, Mammie and Aunt Jemima weren't all that thrilled about America, either. I mean, really, talk about patriotism and why black women aren't always proud of this country, lets talk about the difference in the coverage of Jessica Lynch and Shoshana Johnson.
This isn't to say that Michelle Obama doesn't love or isn't proud of her country. It is to say that "whitey" doesn't have the moral ground to judge her one way or the other.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Tucker Carlson Has No Clue What He's Talking About
On MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews today, Tucker Carlson asserts that if Barack Obama pledged to end affirmative action, he'd win in a landslide. That part of what Tucker said is true. He also said that everybody knows it's wrong. That part, my dears, is false. He also argued that, "It was forty years ago," as though it's no longer necessary.
Here are some facts.
1 - Affirmative action works.
2 - It helps white women more than people of color, male or female. And the husbands and children and communities of white women, the overwhelming majority of whom are also white, benefit from white women's being paid more than what they'd earn otherwise and being promoted more than what they would otherwise.
3 - Neither white students nor workers are displaced by affirmative action programs.
4 - It is illegal to hire a person of color or a woman unqualified for the job over a white person or a man.
5 - Discrimination still exists. Affirmative action is still necessary.
6 - Affirmative actions help ensure a meritocracy.
7 - Using "socioeconomic" affirmative action instead of race/gender based affirmative action only aggravates existing racial/gender disparities.
Here're some more facts: The backlash against affirmative actions began as soon as the programs were legislated. The backlash that exists today is as based on ignorance and whites' racial animosity as it was then. African Americans are not the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action; and, the idea that we are is only effective in opposing affirmative action because of the racism that remains today.
Here are some facts.
1 - Affirmative action works.
2 - It helps white women more than people of color, male or female. And the husbands and children and communities of white women, the overwhelming majority of whom are also white, benefit from white women's being paid more than what they'd earn otherwise and being promoted more than what they would otherwise.
3 - Neither white students nor workers are displaced by affirmative action programs.
4 - It is illegal to hire a person of color or a woman unqualified for the job over a white person or a man.
5 - Discrimination still exists. Affirmative action is still necessary.
6 - Affirmative actions help ensure a meritocracy.
7 - Using "socioeconomic" affirmative action instead of race/gender based affirmative action only aggravates existing racial/gender disparities.
Here're some more facts: The backlash against affirmative actions began as soon as the programs were legislated. The backlash that exists today is as based on ignorance and whites' racial animosity as it was then. African Americans are not the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action; and, the idea that we are is only effective in opposing affirmative action because of the racism that remains today.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Long Buried . . .
The Chicago Tribune has an article today, "Long Buried Story of Black America," that excites me as a historian and anti racist. It details new archaeological findings of towns free blacks in the Midwest started before and after the Civil War. It's exciting to me as an historian because, of course, it'll tell us more about history. What thrills me as an anti racist is that these findings subtracts credence from the story-line of African Americans as passive participators in history who constantly have things done to them. It also undercuts the recent myth of African Americans having "victims' mentality." You really gotta read the article for yourself. It's marvelous!
In other news, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie has written a very cogent essay for the Washington Post titled, "The Color of an Awkward Conversation." You can contrast these two articles, especially "Long Buried Story," with some of the comments to Adichie's essay.
In other news, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie has written a very cogent essay for the Washington Post titled, "The Color of an Awkward Conversation." You can contrast these two articles, especially "Long Buried Story," with some of the comments to Adichie's essay.
Friday, June 6, 2008
When It Comes to Making Money, "Whitey" Don't Care about You, Either
This is for all of you who think civil rights, equality and justice is just for black folks, women, and other racial and gender minorities. What so many of those Ferraro whites who aren't racist but have "racial resentment" fail to understand is that if they'd get over their racism, we could build stronger labor unions and better jobs and wages. If they'd get over their racism and vote Democratically, we could have a government that better responded to the needs and concerns of the people. Think about it. It's the war hawks who've got us in Iraq, spending billions that the Pentagon can't account for, letting "homeland" infrastructure crumble and for oil that's ruining the environment. It's the Republicans who wanted to privatize social security and cut medicare programs, which many an old white people depend on.
Take the whole housing crisis as an example. Yeah, black folks upset because we disproportionately were given illegal predatory loans. But, some white folks got those bad loans, too. And if a more Democratic government had been in place, not that the Clinton administration didn't stop some regulation, but it would be reasonable to assume few people of any race would've been given these bad loans.
And now, take a look at what the CDC is doing to babies. And mostly white ones at that. And be sure, that while my language is a bit rough this post, and I may even come back and clean it up . . . may not, that I don't just care about African Americans. Yes, put in the crowd the places the Black community first and foremost. But, I'd never leave anyone, white, brown, black, red, or yellow, behind.
Paxil Babies: The Dangers of Antidepressants
Take the whole housing crisis as an example. Yeah, black folks upset because we disproportionately were given illegal predatory loans. But, some white folks got those bad loans, too. And if a more Democratic government had been in place, not that the Clinton administration didn't stop some regulation, but it would be reasonable to assume few people of any race would've been given these bad loans.
And now, take a look at what the CDC is doing to babies. And mostly white ones at that. And be sure, that while my language is a bit rough this post, and I may even come back and clean it up . . . may not, that I don't just care about African Americans. Yes, put in the crowd the places the Black community first and foremost. But, I'd never leave anyone, white, brown, black, red, or yellow, behind.
Paxil Babies: The Dangers of Antidepressants
Has Change Come? II
Now that I at least made an attempt to wax eloquent about this historic event, let me lay out my truest feelings.
It's really not all that surprising the Barack Obama would be the first person of African descent to have a serious shot at the presidency. He's had to downplay his African descent since he announced his candidacy!
Now, don't get me wrong. He hasn't run from his Kenyan roots. In fact, part of his appeal is his international reach. But the brother has had to run from every instance of truth about race in America. Yeah, he told America that black anger was real and something to contend with and not just dismiss out of hand. But he also vouched for white resentment. And what they have to be resentful of towards black Americans, I don't know.
Obama's had to reject the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Catholic Minister (I just can't bring myself to say "Father.") Michael Pfleger, both of whom were speaking the truth, as Hillary Clinton so kindly and graciously demonstrated Tuesday night. He didn't call Geraldine Ferraro racist, though that may be news to her. He didn't call the Clinton campaign's obvious race-baiting racist, though that may be news to her more rabid supporters.
So what's my point? My point is simply this: Barack Obama has become the first black man to have a real shot at becoming the POTUS by running the most culturally "un-black" campaign he could. Yes, he often did the "hip" hand shake/hug with men as he came on stage. Michelle Obama gave him "dap" before he spoke Tuesday night. But that makes Obama "cool," not "black."
So, while I'm heartened by his success . . . I'm thrilled by hearing that already, young black males are taking notice and applying themselves more studiously to their academics, I still can't shake that racism not only impacted his campaign by restricting the number of votes he received, it also impacted his campaign by restricting the way he could run. That saddens me.
But, there is hope that even I, Number One 'K' State, will admit to. Obama's success demonstrates that when African Americans are given the same opportunities as white Americans, when we're given the same chances and protected from the police-scrutiny we now receive, we can achieve anything.
Go 'head Barack Obama!
Barack Rocks!! '08!!!
It's really not all that surprising the Barack Obama would be the first person of African descent to have a serious shot at the presidency. He's had to downplay his African descent since he announced his candidacy!
Now, don't get me wrong. He hasn't run from his Kenyan roots. In fact, part of his appeal is his international reach. But the brother has had to run from every instance of truth about race in America. Yeah, he told America that black anger was real and something to contend with and not just dismiss out of hand. But he also vouched for white resentment. And what they have to be resentful of towards black Americans, I don't know.
Obama's had to reject the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Catholic Minister (I just can't bring myself to say "Father.") Michael Pfleger, both of whom were speaking the truth, as Hillary Clinton so kindly and graciously demonstrated Tuesday night. He didn't call Geraldine Ferraro racist, though that may be news to her. He didn't call the Clinton campaign's obvious race-baiting racist, though that may be news to her more rabid supporters.
So what's my point? My point is simply this: Barack Obama has become the first black man to have a real shot at becoming the POTUS by running the most culturally "un-black" campaign he could. Yes, he often did the "hip" hand shake/hug with men as he came on stage. Michelle Obama gave him "dap" before he spoke Tuesday night. But that makes Obama "cool," not "black."
So, while I'm heartened by his success . . . I'm thrilled by hearing that already, young black males are taking notice and applying themselves more studiously to their academics, I still can't shake that racism not only impacted his campaign by restricting the number of votes he received, it also impacted his campaign by restricting the way he could run. That saddens me.
But, there is hope that even I, Number One 'K' State, will admit to. Obama's success demonstrates that when African Americans are given the same opportunities as white Americans, when we're given the same chances and protected from the police-scrutiny we now receive, we can achieve anything.
Go 'head Barack Obama!
Barack Rocks!! '08!!!
Has a Change Come? I
It's taken me sometime to work out my thoughts about Barack Obama's winning the nomination. Even though I've been an Obama supporter since he announced his candidacy, even though I voted for him, even though I volunteered for him, part of me still can't believe it.
The black guy with the funny name is the Democratic Party's nominee for the presidency of the United States of America.
I can hardly believe it. This country. These "united states." I mean, Africans have been enslaved, Counter-Reconstructed, and Jim Crowed. We've survived presidents who owned slaves, presidents who raped slaves. Woodrow Wilson. The president famous for his League of Nations. Famous for "making the world safe for democracy." Made no bones about not including black and brown people in his fight for self-governance.
We've gone through the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the America-Spanish War, the Mexican War, the Civil War, World Wars One and Two, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and the two Persian Gulf Wars.
And now. As of Tuesday, June 3, 2008, we have an African American major party candidate for president. It's unbelievable. It is.
The black guy with the funny name is the Democratic Party's nominee for the presidency of the United States of America.
I can hardly believe it. This country. These "united states." I mean, Africans have been enslaved, Counter-Reconstructed, and Jim Crowed. We've survived presidents who owned slaves, presidents who raped slaves. Woodrow Wilson. The president famous for his League of Nations. Famous for "making the world safe for democracy." Made no bones about not including black and brown people in his fight for self-governance.
We've gone through the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the America-Spanish War, the Mexican War, the Civil War, World Wars One and Two, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and the two Persian Gulf Wars.
And now. As of Tuesday, June 3, 2008, we have an African American major party candidate for president. It's unbelievable. It is.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Truth: 1 Keith Boykin Is My New Crush
Today, Keith Boykin, my new crush, said something on national TV I'd never thought I'd hear. Let me point out that it was on CNN and I don't watch CNN that much, so he might have said it before. Though, I didn't hear him say it on MSNBC.
He said basically that white Americans and their enablers-of-color, my words, are out-of-line to judge the black church when the overwhelming majority of them have never been to a black church. Our preachers don't speak in the same style as most white preachers, and that can be new and different for folks who aren't used to it. And we all know the human propensity for deciding that what's different is also wrong. Moreover, black church deal with issues of justice and racism all the time. Just because it seems "different" to people unfamiliar with the Black church doesn't make it wrong.
I'm not surprised that white churches don't confront white supremacy and racism more. You shouldn't be, either. White people, by and large, don't suffer the disadvantages of color or minority status. And from several anecdotal accounts, when they finally face being the only white face in a crowd of black people, they often feel uncomfortable. I've even heard "unwelcomed." For my experience, I have high school classmates who've only been to a black church once in their lives. It was when I was able to schedule my high school chamber choir to sing during a youth revival at my former church. We sang two gospel songs and one "classical" Christian song, which, by the way, the audience enjoyed very much. But, on the last gospel song, what black people call "the Holy Ghost" broke out and people started dancing, including not a few of the black members of the chamber choir. The white girls, a number with whom I was friends with from having been a minority in classes with them since middle school, confessed that the experience scared them to death and they would never go to a black church again.
So, black people and white people have different church experiences. We also have different life experiences. White people can afford not to notice racism. Black people cannot. White preachers by and large don't have to address the issue of racism because their congregants don't face it and swear they're not supporters of it, which, of course, can't be true. When black people go to church, we're hoping for encouragement and spiritual relief from our daily lives. A pastor who speaks out against injustice is a balm in Gilead. That doesn't make the pastor or the church anti-white. It makes both realists.
A lot of people argue that Jesus never got involved in politics. "Give Caesar what's Caesar's and God what's God's," they quote (Matthew 22:21). But folks who make that argument neglect the fact that Jesus dealt with people's practical everyday concerns. It's important to remember the Beatitudes. In what many scholars believe is a reference to the way Roman soldiers, often tired themselves, would force Jews to carry their equipment for a mile, Jesus tells the Jews to carry the soldier's load for two miles, instead. Now, you have to understand. Jesus wasn't suggesting they submit to the injustice but overcome the justice with love. We saw that born out in the nonviolent Black Freedom Movement. But, the action was a way of challenging injustice nonetheless. It was a way of recognizing the humanity in everyone, that perhaps the soldier was as much a slave to the system as were the Jews.
And perhaps, that's the case with white Americans. In fact, many argue that it is. Few white Americans can bear the psychological trauma of acknowledging many of their luxuries are ill gotten.
But Jesus didn't just say to make nice. Jesus also made trouble. Mostly, he challenged the Jewish religious leaders who had begun conspiring with the Roman officials and using their religious authority to tie up heavy loads and put them on people's shoulders even though they didn't help the people carry them (Matthew 23:4). And lets be clear. "Loving your enemies" while your enemies denies you loans you qualify for, don't give you equal pay, or equal protection under the law is a load to bare. The pastor who condemns discrimination in financing, pay, and criminal justice is helping his/her parishioners carry that load.
But that's not all Jesus did. He healed the sick during the sabbath. He opened conversation with a woman of a "lower" race. He even healed the daughter of a Roman army commander. He let an "unclean" woman touch him and healed her "issue of blood."
So, yes, in our Black churches, we will speak against anti-black racism and any other injustice. And if a few white Americans' feelings get hurt because they deem what's said and done "inappropriate," so be it. White Americans and their enablers-of-color do not have the moral high ground on this issue. Revs. Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger were both correct. As is, my new crush, Keith Boykin.
He said basically that white Americans and their enablers-of-color, my words, are out-of-line to judge the black church when the overwhelming majority of them have never been to a black church. Our preachers don't speak in the same style as most white preachers, and that can be new and different for folks who aren't used to it. And we all know the human propensity for deciding that what's different is also wrong. Moreover, black church deal with issues of justice and racism all the time. Just because it seems "different" to people unfamiliar with the Black church doesn't make it wrong.
I'm not surprised that white churches don't confront white supremacy and racism more. You shouldn't be, either. White people, by and large, don't suffer the disadvantages of color or minority status. And from several anecdotal accounts, when they finally face being the only white face in a crowd of black people, they often feel uncomfortable. I've even heard "unwelcomed." For my experience, I have high school classmates who've only been to a black church once in their lives. It was when I was able to schedule my high school chamber choir to sing during a youth revival at my former church. We sang two gospel songs and one "classical" Christian song, which, by the way, the audience enjoyed very much. But, on the last gospel song, what black people call "the Holy Ghost" broke out and people started dancing, including not a few of the black members of the chamber choir. The white girls, a number with whom I was friends with from having been a minority in classes with them since middle school, confessed that the experience scared them to death and they would never go to a black church again.
So, black people and white people have different church experiences. We also have different life experiences. White people can afford not to notice racism. Black people cannot. White preachers by and large don't have to address the issue of racism because their congregants don't face it and swear they're not supporters of it, which, of course, can't be true. When black people go to church, we're hoping for encouragement and spiritual relief from our daily lives. A pastor who speaks out against injustice is a balm in Gilead. That doesn't make the pastor or the church anti-white. It makes both realists.
A lot of people argue that Jesus never got involved in politics. "Give Caesar what's Caesar's and God what's God's," they quote (Matthew 22:21). But folks who make that argument neglect the fact that Jesus dealt with people's practical everyday concerns. It's important to remember the Beatitudes. In what many scholars believe is a reference to the way Roman soldiers, often tired themselves, would force Jews to carry their equipment for a mile, Jesus tells the Jews to carry the soldier's load for two miles, instead. Now, you have to understand. Jesus wasn't suggesting they submit to the injustice but overcome the justice with love. We saw that born out in the nonviolent Black Freedom Movement. But, the action was a way of challenging injustice nonetheless. It was a way of recognizing the humanity in everyone, that perhaps the soldier was as much a slave to the system as were the Jews.
And perhaps, that's the case with white Americans. In fact, many argue that it is. Few white Americans can bear the psychological trauma of acknowledging many of their luxuries are ill gotten.
But Jesus didn't just say to make nice. Jesus also made trouble. Mostly, he challenged the Jewish religious leaders who had begun conspiring with the Roman officials and using their religious authority to tie up heavy loads and put them on people's shoulders even though they didn't help the people carry them (Matthew 23:4). And lets be clear. "Loving your enemies" while your enemies denies you loans you qualify for, don't give you equal pay, or equal protection under the law is a load to bare. The pastor who condemns discrimination in financing, pay, and criminal justice is helping his/her parishioners carry that load.
But that's not all Jesus did. He healed the sick during the sabbath. He opened conversation with a woman of a "lower" race. He even healed the daughter of a Roman army commander. He let an "unclean" woman touch him and healed her "issue of blood."
So, yes, in our Black churches, we will speak against anti-black racism and any other injustice. And if a few white Americans' feelings get hurt because they deem what's said and done "inappropriate," so be it. White Americans and their enablers-of-color do not have the moral high ground on this issue. Revs. Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger were both correct. As is, my new crush, Keith Boykin.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
White Racism: 2 vs Truth:0 (updated)
Though the decision was made a while ago, Sen Barack Obama has decided to leave his church. White voters and their enablers-of-color were terrified that Obama might be a black separatist or anti-white racist because of the few comments they've heard from Rev. Wright and Pfleger. The truth is that both were speaking out against white supremacy and in favor of black pride in the face of anti-black racism. So, white racism won out on this issue.
The argument most white voters and their enablers-of-color make is that not all whites are racist or privileged. This, too, is a lie that supports the continuation of white racism. The USA Today has reported that the federal government is filing fewer housing discrimination charges even as consumer complaints against landlords, real estate agents and mortgage brokers have risen steadily. And if you read through the comments, you'll see that even with facts describing bias against people of color, some people defend of white racism. So, truth loses again.
In the meantime, the DNC has reached a compromise on Florida and Michigan. The new number is 2118 as full delegations from both states were given half a vote for each delegate. Obama is only 66 delegates away from that number. But, I'm not so thrilled as I would've been. Though I still find Obama far superior to Clinton and out of McCain's league, I never found him quite far enough to the political left to make any substantial changes. Robert Jensen explains that point quite well here. But, I was still willing to support Obama's candidacy for president. His recent capitulation to white racism and injustice saddens me very much.
Update: "I'm not denouncing the church and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church," he said, adding that the new pastor at Trinity and "the church have been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them." - Obama.
I still don't find Obama to be my dream candidate, but knowing that part of his leaving had to do with how the story was Impacting the church, not just how the church was impacting his nomination chances makes me feel better about supporting him 100%.
The argument most white voters and their enablers-of-color make is that not all whites are racist or privileged. This, too, is a lie that supports the continuation of white racism. The USA Today has reported that the federal government is filing fewer housing discrimination charges even as consumer complaints against landlords, real estate agents and mortgage brokers have risen steadily. And if you read through the comments, you'll see that even with facts describing bias against people of color, some people defend of white racism. So, truth loses again.
In the meantime, the DNC has reached a compromise on Florida and Michigan. The new number is 2118 as full delegations from both states were given half a vote for each delegate. Obama is only 66 delegates away from that number. But, I'm not so thrilled as I would've been. Though I still find Obama far superior to Clinton and out of McCain's league, I never found him quite far enough to the political left to make any substantial changes. Robert Jensen explains that point quite well here. But, I was still willing to support Obama's candidacy for president. His recent capitulation to white racism and injustice saddens me very much.
Update: "I'm not denouncing the church and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church," he said, adding that the new pastor at Trinity and "the church have been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them." - Obama.
I still don't find Obama to be my dream candidate, but knowing that part of his leaving had to do with how the story was Impacting the church, not just how the church was impacting his nomination chances makes me feel better about supporting him 100%.
Whitey, Please II
I am very disappointed in some of the reaction to Pfleger's comments.
Let me say again that he was wrong in making partisan comments in church. However, those comments were neither racist nor sexist.
But I'm mostly disappointed in the castigation of the congregation. The congregation is being accused of anti-white racism.
In the meantime, the murderers of Sean Bell go free, and Pat Buchanan and Geraldine Ferrarro are treated as serious voices.
So let me be clear for all white Americans who don't seem to understand. When black people cheer a denunciation of white supremacy, white entitlement, white privilege, we are not cheering and ridiculing white people. As long as white Americans equate the rejection of anti-racial minority racism with anti-white racism, we will get nowhere with racial reconciliation. As long as speaking the truth is divisive, we will get nowhere with racial reconciliation. And let's be clear, the reason truth has become so divisive is that white Americans refuse to accept the truth. And here's how "division" benefits them and why they keep calling foul: as long as there is "division," nothing will change; and, white Americans can continue in their happy lives, which aren't negatively impact by racism, without giving up any of their white-skin privilege.
And here's what everyone needs to understand. The fact that the party which benefits from racism gets to determine the bounds of racial discussion is an indication of white supremacy itself.
What I, as an anti-racist activist, demand is not some "kumbaya" hand-holding with the races making nice while whiteness is still held as the standard. I don't want the "equal opportunity" to be white. I demand justice. Justice demands truth. And if whites are so resistant to hear the truth that truth-telling is divisive, so be it.
Let me say again that he was wrong in making partisan comments in church. However, those comments were neither racist nor sexist.
But I'm mostly disappointed in the castigation of the congregation. The congregation is being accused of anti-white racism.
In the meantime, the murderers of Sean Bell go free, and Pat Buchanan and Geraldine Ferrarro are treated as serious voices.
So let me be clear for all white Americans who don't seem to understand. When black people cheer a denunciation of white supremacy, white entitlement, white privilege, we are not cheering and ridiculing white people. As long as white Americans equate the rejection of anti-racial minority racism with anti-white racism, we will get nowhere with racial reconciliation. As long as speaking the truth is divisive, we will get nowhere with racial reconciliation. And let's be clear, the reason truth has become so divisive is that white Americans refuse to accept the truth. And here's how "division" benefits them and why they keep calling foul: as long as there is "division," nothing will change; and, white Americans can continue in their happy lives, which aren't negatively impact by racism, without giving up any of their white-skin privilege.
And here's what everyone needs to understand. The fact that the party which benefits from racism gets to determine the bounds of racial discussion is an indication of white supremacy itself.
What I, as an anti-racist activist, demand is not some "kumbaya" hand-holding with the races making nice while whiteness is still held as the standard. I don't want the "equal opportunity" to be white. I demand justice. Justice demands truth. And if whites are so resistant to hear the truth that truth-telling is divisive, so be it.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Whitey, Please Get Over Yourself
It's not hate to speak the truth.
"This is mine. I'm Bill's wife. I'm white. And this is mine."
These are the words of Chicago Catholic pastor Michael Pfleger (and hopefully the right video).
Now, me, I find the whole episode hilarious! But, I do wanna make some things clear.
Pfleger was wrong for what he said because it appears to be partisan, and churches can't engage in partisan politics. I say "appears to be" because, while I haven't seen, heard, or read the entire sermon, I can imagine he was making a larger point about racism in America.
Part of what makes the clip funny is that that's exactly how Hillary Clinton has been acting this entire campaign.
Let me translate things for you.
"This is mine," is what Clinton meant when she told Katie Couric when asked if she would be dissapointed if she weren't the Democratic nominee, “Well, it will be me,” she said.
"I'm Bill's wife," is what Clinton says everytime she embraces to the 90s.
"I'm white," is what Clinton is pointing out when she talks about winning "hard working Americans, white Americans."
The Obama said he was "disappointed" by the comments. Pfleger, for his part, apologized. The Clinton campaign is whining . . . again.
Pfleger also said, "Unless you are willing to give up the benefits then you must be responsible for what was done in your generation, because you are the beneficiaries of this insurance policy."
But besides the partisan politics in church, nothing was wrong with what Pfleger said. Nothing. I know some people find his words devisive. The truth can be that way for people who refuse to see. So long as white Americans refuse to acknowledge the benefits they receive simply because they're white, there will be no racial reconciliation.
So long as the overwhelming majority of white Americans play "symmetry" games, there will be no reconciliation. I will not accept superficial symmetry for true equality. What gets white people in trouble for saying things like this is that they're often spreading lies and parroting false stereotypes about the Black community. Here Pfleger is neither lying nor spreading a false stereotype.
"This is mine. I'm Bill's wife. I'm white. And this is mine."
These are the words of Chicago Catholic pastor Michael Pfleger (and hopefully the right video).
Now, me, I find the whole episode hilarious! But, I do wanna make some things clear.
Pfleger was wrong for what he said because it appears to be partisan, and churches can't engage in partisan politics. I say "appears to be" because, while I haven't seen, heard, or read the entire sermon, I can imagine he was making a larger point about racism in America.
Part of what makes the clip funny is that that's exactly how Hillary Clinton has been acting this entire campaign.
Let me translate things for you.
"This is mine," is what Clinton meant when she told Katie Couric when asked if she would be dissapointed if she weren't the Democratic nominee, “Well, it will be me,” she said.
"I'm Bill's wife," is what Clinton says everytime she embraces to the 90s.
"I'm white," is what Clinton is pointing out when she talks about winning "hard working Americans, white Americans."
The Obama said he was "disappointed" by the comments. Pfleger, for his part, apologized. The Clinton campaign is whining . . . again.
Pfleger also said, "Unless you are willing to give up the benefits then you must be responsible for what was done in your generation, because you are the beneficiaries of this insurance policy."
But besides the partisan politics in church, nothing was wrong with what Pfleger said. Nothing. I know some people find his words devisive. The truth can be that way for people who refuse to see. So long as white Americans refuse to acknowledge the benefits they receive simply because they're white, there will be no racial reconciliation.
So long as the overwhelming majority of white Americans play "symmetry" games, there will be no reconciliation. I will not accept superficial symmetry for true equality. What gets white people in trouble for saying things like this is that they're often spreading lies and parroting false stereotypes about the Black community. Here Pfleger is neither lying nor spreading a false stereotype.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Share This Article
But Don't Jack My Genuis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.