The Atlantic - Latest Comments in What We Call Racism

Re: What We Call Racism

Kaitlin Duck Sherwood — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:39:12 -0000

PeteL -- There is some great research by one Jonathan Haight

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=f26e1846ed281b38&ex=1200891600&emc=eta1

which says many things, but one of them is that conservatives value in-group loyalty much more than liberals; liberals value fairness much more than conservatives. This means, perhaps, that conservatives think it is absolutely natural to distrust people who "don't look like them", while liberals (by and large) don't have a problem with people who don't look like them.

I think this is in part an urban vs. rural split. If you are urban, "your people" are not all white. "Your people" are the Indian neighbour, the Chinese colleague, the Black college roommate, and the Mexican sister-in-law.

(For urbanites, it might even become difficult to say who "your people" are. Your family, 2000 miles away? Your work colleagues? Your neighbours? Your college buddies? People from your house of worship? People from your skydiving club?)

Liberals *do* have a problem with people who don't think like them, i.e. are not "rational" or "fair".

Re: What We Call Racism

OhKen — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:30:16 -0000

Extra points for the 1776 reference!

Re: What We Call Racism

tinisoli — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:04:15 -0000

I've got some David Cross stand-up on my computer with a great bit about the flap over Trent Lott a few years back. At one point Cross, in his best impersonation of Lott on a MTP-style show, says "Y'all misunderstood me. When I said 'All niggers are faggots,' what I meant to say was, 'all faggots are niggers.' Completely different thing!"

Re: What We Call Racism

PeteL — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 07:24:34 -0000

One other gigantic insight: this may go a long way to explaining why the white take on multi-culturalism, as witnessed by Ta-Nehisi and others, seems to skew so much toward Jim Crow-type white supremacy.

I believe there are A LOT of whites who would agree with me on the following: we believe strongly in universal enfranchisement as the cornerstone of our democracy, we believe strongly that all people deserve a true, unfettered, equal opportunity to success, including the encouragement of those that have gone before like Sotomayor. Oh, and we believe one other thing: that I individually am better than you individually.

And I fully expect you to believe that you individually are better than me.

And we recognize that this creates a certain tension, that opportunity often comes about as a result of "looking the part", and so to some extent we want folks who look like us to be more "the part" than folks who don't. Again, we fully expect that folks who don't look like us would feel exactly the opposite - and perhaps this tension could be part of what would make a thriving democracy great.

I guess what I am getting at is these whites aspire to something like an honorable, fair fight, understanding that the desire for my "part" to be better than "yours" is an unfortunately distasteful but probably inevitable part of the process. The best way to deal with this distasteful element seems, from our perspective, like candor about its existence.

When there is no discussion about the tension between "rooting for themselves" and a "desire for multiculturalism and universal enfranchisement", it may silence many whites, as it leads to an interpretation that perhaps other folks are not aligned to these ideals. As a result, the only whites left talking about race-related issues are the supremacist ones.

But as the Imhofe quote suggests, there's still many rivers to cross to get to my ideal place, even if I personally don't tend to see them.

Re: What We Call Racism

PeteL — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:45:28 -0000

White Republicans forcing Sotomayor to grovel in retraction over "Wise Latina" is surely one of the more horrid instances of minority relations so far in the 21st century. Horrid because it should have been patently, absurdly obvious in context that Sotomayor was not saying anything negative about whites but rather something positive about hispanics.

Imagine the scene: Sotomayor, a hispanic child of poverty rising to the highest heights of the legal profession, is speaking to a group of young, newly-minted lawyers of similar background - and dreams - as hers. In addition to their dreams, they of course carry a whole bunch of baggage, inherited from a lifetime of living in white majority culture.

In making the "Wise Latina" comment, Sotomayor, speaking from her exceptionally credible bully pulpit, encourages these young hispanic female laywers that, assuming they are good, they can toss that baggage aside and pursue their excellence.

What the hell is wrong with that? (Speaking, of course, as a white man.)

Someone recently pointed out that mixing it up back here causes you to see things from a different perspective. Couldn't agree more. This was my first interaction with "Wise Latina" considering the possibility of something like Ta-Nehisi's existential fear of white folks being present in the mind of those young, often poor, aspiring female hispanic lawyers...which makes "Wise Latina" even MORE laudable and LESS offensive. It is true blue heart of America to encourage those that see barriers to success to shake off those barriers and reach for the gold ring. Isn't it?

From my perch I might call it paranoia, but you also start to see where the comments from Imhofe may not be that surprising or inconsistent at all. If you don't think that a successful female hispanic judge, who has risen up out of poverty, ought to encourage upcoming female hispanic lawyers that they don't have to indulge their fears of the white man, well then OF COURSE you don't have a problem with what either Trent Lott...or Strom Thurmond...said.

Re: What We Call Racism

funkasmellic — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:50:26 -0000

All right, you've figured out that Republicans are flaming hypocrites...congratulations.

Re: What We Call Racism

Guest — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:34:42 -0000

I wasn't aware of the history of Mr. Lott's comments, and I retract my comment.

Re: What We Call Racism

Sorn — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:31:37 -0000

In other Men in Tights related news:

we didn't land on Sherwood Forest. Sherwood Forest landed on us

Re: What We Call Racism

Sorn — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:30:01 -0000

Speaking of the relationship between Strom Thurmond, racism, Trent Lott, and some -not all- republicans --after all Colin Powell is a republican, John McCain even when I disagree with him I respect him for what he's done, and I personally have always been a fan of Old Man G.H.W. Bush-- a line from Men In Tights comes to mind:

Never have so many done so much for so few

This is in some respects the essence of racism.

In other Men in Tights related news:

Re: What We Call Racism

Miles Ellison — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:22:34 -0000

Trent Lott's comments were not "off-hand." They were a succinct statement of the prime racist directive of southern politics, which was the denial of any kind of black equality under the law. Are these the kind of white males that would make better decisions than a "wise latina woman?" And as others have pointed out, he said it in front of racist groups. Many times. Trent Lott, like Thurmond, left the Democratic Party because of the civil rights issue. There isn't any ambiguity here. Sotomayor's quote was, for the umpteenth time, taken out of context. Lott's quote was perfectly clear, and perfectly in context.

Re: What We Call Racism

Josh Jasper — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:11:24 -0000

Sometimes I think there's hope for Sullivan yet. I'm suspicious that he's more politically motivated than possessed of a total 360 degree clue, but I hold out hope for him.

Re: What We Call Racism

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:58:21 -0000

It wasn't off-handed, and it wasn't the first time he said it. The Post found he'd said the same thing a decade earlier. Furthermore, Trent Lott has addressed the racist Conservative Citizen's Council at least three times. Lott's uncle says that Lott is actually a member. Lott, of course, denies this.

Re: What We Call Racism

Eduardo — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:46:46 -0000

This is what Trent Lott said:

When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either.

Off-handed they might have been, but those are the comments of a racist. He (or his state) voted for ST, who ran on the States' Rights Democratic Party, which basically meant: segregation.

I have to assume you are kidding here

Re: What We Call Racism

JAD1973 — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:30:32 -0000

I really don't like Senator Inhofe all that very much. Really.

Re: What We Call Racism

JAD1973 — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:30:04 -0000

I'm guessing that's sarcasm? (assuming)

Re: What We Call Racism

grawk — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:20:31 -0000

"There is no other way you can interpret [Sotomayor's "wise Latina" speech]. She thinks that a woman with her experience can make a better conclusion than a white male - and to me, I consider that racist," - Inhofe, August 4, 2009.

White men have a much longer history of disastrous conclusions made, and defended, than any Latina, wise or no. If she uses white history as a cautionary tale, then the Latina, indeed, becomes wise: while there is no guarantee, to be sure, that the Latina will make better decisions, it's clear she'll avoid the ones white guys have already made.

So, let's give her a chance. And fuck Inhofe.

Re: What We Call Racism

Guest — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:18:44 -0000

I don't think the comparison holds water. Trent Lott made one off-hand remark that he apologized for. Justice Sotomayor made variations of the "wise latina" comment over several years, in front of a variety of audiences. I think that an off hand remark is less indicative of a persons racist beliefs than a history of racist remarks.

Re: What We Call Racism

dmf — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:13:15 -0000

hah, funny medium this is, somewhere back in the archives you could find TNC's declaration of this as a cursing-friendly zone. so feel free to let your freak-flag (that's for u CitE) fly, night, d.

Re: What We Call Racism

ellaesther — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:28:46 -0000

Ah, I'm letting my facade of polite behavior slip! I've been restraining myself over here -- it's kind of a swanky joint, all told, and I've been being careful.

But generally, when there are no children present (and in other places on the web), I swear like a truck driver. No, strike that, my truck-driver friend swears a lot less than I do....

Re: What We Call Racism

Bruce — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:20:20 -0000

so what you're saying is that a person, with a white male perspective can give a better judgement on what Former Minority Whipp Lott meant as a portrayal of Strom Thurmonds life achievements? btw, the snark hasn't passed unnoticed!

Re: What We Call Racism

dmf — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:09:04 -0000

ee, language! just joshing not sure why but it suprised me to 'hear' you swear.

Re: What We Call Racism

dmf — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:06:41 -0000

good thing none of us do this

Re: What We Call Racism

ellaesther — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:57:52 -0000

PS I'm a feminist. Which is why I used that example.

Re: What We Call Racism

shwa — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:42:22 -0000

To paraphrase 1176 (and Ben Franklin), racism cannot exist in the 1st person, e.g., "I am a racist." It is only in the 3rd person, "he/she is a racist," that it becomes real.

Re: What We Call Racism

absurdbeats — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:42:11 -0000

Check out Kelefa Sanneh's comment in the latest issue of the New Yorker. An excerpt:

'Some who are skeptical of affirmative action, and of other programs designed to advance non-whites, consider reverse racism to be so pervasive, and so well entrenched, that it can only be described as systemic. . . . In fact, the 'reverse' has largely been dropped from 'reverse racism'; in today's mainstream political discourse, 'racism' regularly refers to anti-white racism.'

Not sure what I think about Sanneh's argument surrounding this observation, but I do think that the loss of privilege (be it of race or sex) is oft translated as oppression.