Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, July 14, 2010
News Nothing Racist About That
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:28 PM
A teabaggin' Tea Party spokesman on the NAACP:
"You're dealing with people who are professional race-baiters, who make a very good living off this kind of thing. They make more money off of race than any slave trader ever. It's time groups like the NAACP went to the trash heap of history where they belong with all the other vile racist groups that emerged in our history."
Seems like only yesterday...
1
The Glenn Beck right wing is making a concerted effort to claim the terms "racist" and "race-baiting" as their own. They use them almost exclusively to refer to the actions of non-white people, and they use them quite frequently in this context. It seems to be working in the case of "race-baiting."
2
Wow. If you read the user comments on sites like Free Republic or even on news.yahoo.com, they really do re-enforce the stereotype many supporters or members of the Tea Party, are indeed bigots.
I guess thanks to Glenn Beck, you can be a bigot and anyone who confronts you about it , gets branded a reverse racist.
I guess thanks to Glenn Beck, you can be a bigot and anyone who confronts you about it , gets branded a reverse racist.
3
I woke up this morning to that quote on the radio. Very strange way to start the day. These are the kind of people who think that any discussion of race issues is inherently racist. There's nothing that makes problems go away like ignoring them.
4
I got that talking point from my dad this past weekend -- that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton had made a fortune playing the race card. Is there enough truth to that to make it stick with scared white people?
7
Down is Up and 2 + 2 =5
Good lord. I can't fathom these people's thought process. How can a person stand that much cognitive dissonance?
So for the NAACP to be a racist organization, you have to ignore the fact that racism was ever a problem in this country, and that there was ever a need to combat it. You have to pretend that all races in the USA were always equal.
Or you have to not believe a single word you say, but if Glenn Beck doesn't believe what he says, and his followers know they're lying when they ape his lies, and everyone else knows he and they are lying, then who are they lying to?
Good lord. I can't fathom these people's thought process. How can a person stand that much cognitive dissonance?
So for the NAACP to be a racist organization, you have to ignore the fact that racism was ever a problem in this country, and that there was ever a need to combat it. You have to pretend that all races in the USA were always equal.
Or you have to not believe a single word you say, but if Glenn Beck doesn't believe what he says, and his followers know they're lying when they ape his lies, and everyone else knows he and they are lying, then who are they lying to?
9
this statement from TeaBag central makes me sick to my stomach.
Has anyone noticed how often conservatives have been using slavery as an analogy lately? Michelle Bachman is only one of many many who have compared about taxes and the federal spending to enslaving americans. There's this one obviously. The healthcare bill was equated with slavery.
I think the goal here is not, ultimately, to prove the horrors of taxes and healthcare, but to diminish the horrors of slavery in America. The Slave trade in the U.S. is the closest this country has to a holocaust. There is no way to know for sure, but even the most subdued, objective, conservative (in the sense of math, not politics) estimates indicate that several millions--Millions!--of humans were raped, imprisoned, worked to death, starved, beaten, whipped, hung, and otherwise murdered. And that's setting aside for the moment the elemental practices of selling human beings for forced labor, which defines a slave trade. And this was all done on the basis of race and ethnic origin. To then say the NAACP (which worked tirelessly to help end the disenfranchisement, oppression, rape, beatings, and even murders that comprised the 100 years of post slavery racial oppression) is worse than slave traders makes me want to vomit with rage. To white-wash (pun intended) the terrible history of slavery and post-slavery segregation is the best way to diffuse any justified anger about this country's racist past against blacks (and others) as well as to obfuscate the responsibility white americans had for that oppression and the privilege they enjoyed over others for most of this nation's history.
These people are sick, twisted, hateful, and don't possess an once of humanity.
Has anyone noticed how often conservatives have been using slavery as an analogy lately? Michelle Bachman is only one of many many who have compared about taxes and the federal spending to enslaving americans. There's this one obviously. The healthcare bill was equated with slavery.
I think the goal here is not, ultimately, to prove the horrors of taxes and healthcare, but to diminish the horrors of slavery in America. The Slave trade in the U.S. is the closest this country has to a holocaust. There is no way to know for sure, but even the most subdued, objective, conservative (in the sense of math, not politics) estimates indicate that several millions--Millions!--of humans were raped, imprisoned, worked to death, starved, beaten, whipped, hung, and otherwise murdered. And that's setting aside for the moment the elemental practices of selling human beings for forced labor, which defines a slave trade. And this was all done on the basis of race and ethnic origin. To then say the NAACP (which worked tirelessly to help end the disenfranchisement, oppression, rape, beatings, and even murders that comprised the 100 years of post slavery racial oppression) is worse than slave traders makes me want to vomit with rage. To white-wash (pun intended) the terrible history of slavery and post-slavery segregation is the best way to diffuse any justified anger about this country's racist past against blacks (and others) as well as to obfuscate the responsibility white americans had for that oppression and the privilege they enjoyed over others for most of this nation's history.
These people are sick, twisted, hateful, and don't possess an once of humanity.
10
@7 or I can look at some of the NAACP's actions over the past decade and think, "Shit. Some of that is actually racist." Such as holding a vote and determining a certain group of white people adherently share a specific attribute. It's fucking racist.
11
@9 I find it offensive that when you think of slavery, you only think of America's. It's not only nationalistic but historically ignorant to the point of which I have to discount your otherwise well thought out argument.
12
@11 I agree that although it was not ok what America did you have to put it in context. IT is for the same reason that you have to put the NAACP in context. FWIW the NAACP does take it too far sometimes but you need that out of any advocacy organization just like the NRA or Greenpeace.
13
Dan,
I agree that Tea Partiers have reactionary elements including racists:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/…
But then, so does the Black Panther Party:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07r…
I believe the NAACP does no one a service by perpetuating the "grievance mentality" with this resolution condemning the Tea Party. Columnist Lynn Varney also endorsed as much in her piece this morning. I disagree with both of them.
Look, I believe racism morally repugnant. So do you. I genuinely believe any Tea Party member will disavow racism as well. Not that they would be necessarily sincere but what choice do they have? Is anyone in their rank & file going to openly declare that the white race is superior to the black race? Or, openly support reinstituting segregation laws?
Our elected President is African-American (and white to some). In addition, he is a liberal. To some conservatives, hyper-criticism of him might be perceived as racist. What to do?
Long time Editorialist, Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune has a point:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opini…
All sides could use a dose of restraint. The Tea Party movement would be served better if it elected an accountable leader who could civily purge reactionary elements from it's movement.
For the record, that's not a defense of the Tea Party. They are just not my style. I don't like reactionary movements right of center or left.
More...
I agree that Tea Partiers have reactionary elements including racists:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/…
But then, so does the Black Panther Party:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07r…
I believe the NAACP does no one a service by perpetuating the "grievance mentality" with this resolution condemning the Tea Party. Columnist Lynn Varney also endorsed as much in her piece this morning. I disagree with both of them.
Look, I believe racism morally repugnant. So do you. I genuinely believe any Tea Party member will disavow racism as well. Not that they would be necessarily sincere but what choice do they have? Is anyone in their rank & file going to openly declare that the white race is superior to the black race? Or, openly support reinstituting segregation laws?
Our elected President is African-American (and white to some). In addition, he is a liberal. To some conservatives, hyper-criticism of him might be perceived as racist. What to do?
Long time Editorialist, Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune has a point:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opini…
All sides could use a dose of restraint. The Tea Party movement would be served better if it elected an accountable leader who could civily purge reactionary elements from it's movement.
For the record, that's not a defense of the Tea Party. They are just not my style. I don't like reactionary movements right of center or left.
14
I find this all really funny. (sorry I moved beyond being upset and angry when I realized we can do nothing, absolutely NOTHING to change it) And people upset / surprised by this sort of thing? Really? What country have you been living in all these year?!?
15
@ 10:
"The NAACP has approved a resolution condemning what it calls "racist elements" within the Tea Party. "
The NAACP was NOT "holding a vote and determining a certain group of white people adherently share a specific attribute. "
@11- CrankyBacon specifically said "to diminish the horrors of slavery in America." They then proceeded to talk about aspects of slavery- gasp!- in America. They did NOT make statements specific to slavery in America that were intended to be taken as characteristic of the only slavery that ever existed.
"The NAACP has approved a resolution condemning what it calls "racist elements" within the Tea Party. "
The NAACP was NOT "holding a vote and determining a certain group of white people adherently share a specific attribute. "
@11- CrankyBacon specifically said "to diminish the horrors of slavery in America." They then proceeded to talk about aspects of slavery- gasp!- in America. They did NOT make statements specific to slavery in America that were intended to be taken as characteristic of the only slavery that ever existed.
16
@11 You can church it up all you want but it doesn't change the fact that they are labeling a group of people. I think that's racist. You may not. As I've learned in discussing race, a lot of people have different points of view on what qualifies and what doesn't.
@12 Ageed. Fair points.
And since we're quoting that article.
"You must expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take full responsibility for all of their actions." By all means African Americans, after you...
@12 Ageed. Fair points.
And since we're quoting that article.
"You must expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take full responsibility for all of their actions." By all means African Americans, after you...
17
@11. The U.S. was the last country to have a LEGAL, INDUSTRIALIZED slave trade. We did not invent it, but we launched it on a scale NEVER before seen in the since 1 A.D., possibly ever. And we did so on a basis of race stronger than most nations. We went to civil war because half this nation wanted to keep it, even after all of our allies had outlawed it decades or even centuries before. (take your, “no, no, the civil war was about economics and differing political ideologies” and blow it out your ass—it was the economics and ideologies of slavery and the fear the big bad federal gob’mnt was going to take away state rights such as a state’s right to legalize slavery)Even Ancient Rome, whose economy was dependent on slaves, had more protections for their slaves than the U.S. did and actually had legal avenues that slaves could (if only freakishly rarely) pursue to win their own freedom and become recognized citizens. Not the U.S. Britain, who is responsible ultimately for establishing the slave trade in the colonies outlawed it decades before and they refused to help the Confederacy, their natural ally, only because they were so mortified by slavery. We had a system in place that--post industrial revolution!--provided legal protections to and economic incentives for slave owners to rape their slave women repeatedly and sell their own slave children begot of that rape to other slave owners. What other nation can boast all that? Certainly not as late as 1862. The slave trade in the U.S. was more brutal, ruthless, race-based, and entrenched than any other nation, at least post A.D., and possibly ever.
This is a country that was the first to be founded on a constitution that confirmed that all men were created equal and had rights no government could take away, but our White House and our Congress were built with slave labor--literally, not figuratively. (though figuratively, too)
What is offensive is your pathetic attempt to deflect the ugly truth and culpability this nation possesses in terms of slavery with a half-assed, ignorant equivalent of "well, other people did it, too." You are offensive. Your suggestion to know a goddamn thing about history is offensive.
And let me just bring in some basic ratiocination. We are talking about American politics, and the NAACP, and which slave traders exactly do you think that American TeaBagger was referring to? Of course I'm going to talk about American slavery you knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, teabag sucking, ignorant piece of worthless apologist shit.
More...
This is a country that was the first to be founded on a constitution that confirmed that all men were created equal and had rights no government could take away, but our White House and our Congress were built with slave labor--literally, not figuratively. (though figuratively, too)
What is offensive is your pathetic attempt to deflect the ugly truth and culpability this nation possesses in terms of slavery with a half-assed, ignorant equivalent of "well, other people did it, too." You are offensive. Your suggestion to know a goddamn thing about history is offensive.
And let me just bring in some basic ratiocination. We are talking about American politics, and the NAACP, and which slave traders exactly do you think that American TeaBagger was referring to? Of course I'm going to talk about American slavery you knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, teabag sucking, ignorant piece of worthless apologist shit.
19
This is all part of a bigger strategy. The Teabaggers are somewhere between libertarians and corporate anarchists. They oppose welfare, healthcare, school lunches, unemployment insurance, retirement benefits, the minimum wage, restrictions on personal or corporate wealth, and any interference in private financial matters by the government.
By extension, it seems like people like Rand Paul and the Teabaggers would see absolutely nothing wrong with someone selling themselves or their first-born into slavery, as long as the two parties can agree upon a price.
Any organized social conscience or human rights groups are a threat to their world view, so of course must all be demonized and forced to disband.
By extension, it seems like people like Rand Paul and the Teabaggers would see absolutely nothing wrong with someone selling themselves or their first-born into slavery, as long as the two parties can agree upon a price.
Any organized social conscience or human rights groups are a threat to their world view, so of course must all be demonized and forced to disband.
20
@16. What putrescence. You equate the chosen affiliation of a political movement coalesced around "shared values" and agreed philosophies with being born a certain pigmentation. There are racists within the ranks of the teabag party. No one with ears, eyes, and two brain cells to rub together could credibly deny this. That doesn't make everyone in the tea party racist by default, but since the tea party is a CHOSEN AFFILIATION with political motives in a democratic republic, they either have to acknowledge and embrace the racists they CHOOSE to align with or throw them out of their ranks. You want everyone born with dark skin tone to first condemn and apologize for anyone else with dark skin tone who doesn't like white people. Pathetic. By your own logic, you need to now demand that all white people have to condemn and apologize for any and all white people who have racist beliefs against non-whites. come on. It's your demand and your logic. You go first. Apologize. You wanted everyone of a race to apologize for everyone else of a race. Fine. Apologize now.
I'm waiting.
You really are a sad, pathetic, half-assed little neo-nazi aren't you?
I'm waiting.
You really are a sad, pathetic, half-assed little neo-nazi aren't you?
21
Racism = racial prejudice + power. White people have the power in this country, political, economic, etc. People of color might be bigoted or prejudice, but without power they can't be racist, not in this country, because we whites control the economic, legal, and political power. Black families have 1/8 the wealth of white families. People of color have systematically been excluded from home ownership for generations based on policies put into place by the FHA. Sure, individual People of Color have individual power, but as a class of people they do not.
22
@18 So we're having a civil conversation in which I make the point that we can all use some improvement and you send me a link that pretty much calls me a bigot, dummy, & a scumbag. Lovely. Glad we accomplished something here today.
23
Cranky, you obviously don't understand how white privilege works - POC have to prove their worth first before they get to be treated as human beings. Duh.
24
thumbs up to 21. even more so when you add the legacy of being actively, legally, and violently purged from the political system for nearly the first 200 years of the country--denied voting rights, denied being able to run for office, denied equal employment, denied entrance to universities, denied equal primary education, denied thousands of various economic and civil opportunities and equal treatment. where is the power the big scary black men at the NAACP and at--gasp--the white house have over those poor down trodden racially oppressed white teabaggers? oh, I feel so bad about the racial hardships, oppression, and economic disadvantages that white christian [men] have suffered in this nation. sob.
26
@20 You can count me in as one who thinks white people should apologize for slavery, and should start not through words, but through action. Welfare, social programs, affirmative action etc. need to be directed towards African Americans in order for the demographic make up for the distinct disadvantages that were forced upon them throughout American history.
I'm sorry if you have taken my opinions of a specific group, the NAACP (an affiliation of choice BTW that has a tendency to speak for an entire race) as a condemnation of the African American race. I'll take partial responsibility for not being more clear with my words but reactionary accusations of "half assed little neo-nazi" doesn't help. Ironicaly you were partially correct: I stand at 5'7".
For clarification: I think the NAACP does some racist shit and is a little hypocritical with their rhetoric. I do not think the entire African American race is responsible for each other, nor do I think a single African American represents an entire race.
I'm sorry if you have taken my opinions of a specific group, the NAACP (an affiliation of choice BTW that has a tendency to speak for an entire race) as a condemnation of the African American race. I'll take partial responsibility for not being more clear with my words but reactionary accusations of "half assed little neo-nazi" doesn't help. Ironicaly you were partially correct: I stand at 5'7".
For clarification: I think the NAACP does some racist shit and is a little hypocritical with their rhetoric. I do not think the entire African American race is responsible for each other, nor do I think a single African American represents an entire race.
27
@16, you say "they are labeling a group of people. I think that's racist."
That makes you -- not a group of people, just you personally -- thick. Stupid. Unaware, lacking in knowledge or the ability to gain it.
That makes you -- not a group of people, just you personally -- thick. Stupid. Unaware, lacking in knowledge or the ability to gain it.
29
@ 26.
You have to admit saying, "And since we're quoting that article.
'You must expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take full responsibility for all of their actions.' By all means African Americans, after you... :"
would lead someone to understand you "think the entire African American race is responsible for each other".
Glad to hear otherwise.
You have to admit saying, "And since we're quoting that article.
'You must expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take full responsibility for all of their actions.' By all means African Americans, after you... :"
would lead someone to understand you "think the entire African American race is responsible for each other".
Glad to hear otherwise.
30
The Slave trade in the U.S. is the closest this country has to a holocaust.Sorry, not even close. The Native American population in 1492 was many times the slave population in 1860. I'm not even going to bother looking up the corresponding figures today; I trust you get my point.
32
Spoken like a true white guy:
"But then, so does the Black Panther Party:"
WRONG!!!! It's only racism when the majority does it to the minority, not the other way around. or the oppressor to the oppressed. sheesh.
"But then, so does the Black Panther Party:"
WRONG!!!! It's only racism when the majority does it to the minority, not the other way around. or the oppressor to the oppressed. sheesh.
33
@21:"People of color might be bigoted or prejudice, (sic) but without power they can't be racist, not in this country, because we whites control the economic, legal, and political power."
@32: "WRONG!!!! It's only racism when the majority does it to the minority, not the other way around. or the oppressor to the oppressed. sheesh. "
*****************************************************
racism definition, merriam webster dictionary:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination.
@32: "WRONG!!!! It's only racism when the majority does it to the minority, not the other way around. or the oppressor to the oppressed. sheesh. "
*****************************************************
racism definition, merriam webster dictionary:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination.
34
@30. point taken. The U.S. has two holocaust-like events in our past. Of course, the one big difference between both these atrocities and the Holocaust, capitol H, is that The Holocaust happened over only 12 years (1933 was the first concentration camp as I recall).
Both the destruction of the native populations and the slave trade were horrific and I won't try to say one was worse than the other because what a depressing, futile victory to search after, huh? One thing to keep in mind though--there's always a "though"!--is your table doesn't take the full time period of slavery into account. 3.5 million in 1860. But that's only one year. During the 18th century, some 6 million slaves were shipped from africa, if I'm remember my history class right. And that isn't counting the 17th century, nor does it count the slaves who were born by slaves in relationships together or all the slaves who were born because of slave-master rape. That isn't to say one is worse than the other or to try and play a numbers competition. Only to offer some context of duration to the figures you provided.
Both the destruction of the native populations and the slave trade were horrific and I won't try to say one was worse than the other because what a depressing, futile victory to search after, huh? One thing to keep in mind though--there's always a "though"!--is your table doesn't take the full time period of slavery into account. 3.5 million in 1860. But that's only one year. During the 18th century, some 6 million slaves were shipped from africa, if I'm remember my history class right. And that isn't counting the 17th century, nor does it count the slaves who were born by slaves in relationships together or all the slaves who were born because of slave-master rape. That isn't to say one is worse than the other or to try and play a numbers competition. Only to offer some context of duration to the figures you provided.
35
Did anyone see the Dick Cheney got a new heart?
Well that's good, the old one wasn't worth a crap!
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticN…
Well that's good, the old one wasn't worth a crap!
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticN…
37
@30 - Maybe you should look up those facts before you start posting those things. See, the majority of that population was Mayan and Incan. The majority of deaths were diseased related that occured in the 15th and 16th century. So, the US is somehow responsible for losses that occurred centuries before it existed (and decades before even the British were here) in areas of land that have never been part of US territory? We're equally at fault for that as we are for an organized, industrial slave trade?
I think there's more than enough guilt to go around that we don't need to start making things up to feel even worse about.
I think there's more than enough guilt to go around that we don't need to start making things up to feel even worse about.
38
@32 STM
According to Merriam-Webster's American English dictionary the definition of racism is : "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"
One doesn't have to be a majority population oppressing a minority. Please look at the history of South Africa.
@34
Just an informational but I believe the first concentration camps were built for Boer (white South African settlers of predominantly Dutch ancestry) civilians during the 2nd (?) Boer War from 1899-1901. It was a war fought by Imperial Britain for gold, diamonds and settlers from Great Britain against the original European settlers, the Boers. Evidently and to no one's surprise, the camp conditions were horrific. Thousands of civilians died in their internment. At the time, GB was chastised by world editorial opinion.
According to Merriam-Webster's American English dictionary the definition of racism is : "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"
One doesn't have to be a majority population oppressing a minority. Please look at the history of South Africa.
@34
Just an informational but I believe the first concentration camps were built for Boer (white South African settlers of predominantly Dutch ancestry) civilians during the 2nd (?) Boer War from 1899-1901. It was a war fought by Imperial Britain for gold, diamonds and settlers from Great Britain against the original European settlers, the Boers. Evidently and to no one's surprise, the camp conditions were horrific. Thousands of civilians died in their internment. At the time, GB was chastised by world editorial opinion.
39
@33 Sociologically speaking, racism = racial prejudice + power. Merriam Webster doesn't really get into the whole "how it affects society" thing.
40
If the Tea Party wants to look less racist, they should recruit some non-white members. I've yet to see one.
They also should go back in time and rally against Bush's $3 trillion in unfunded spending. Looks a little suspicious that they didn't say squat when a good-old white boy mortgaged their future (heck, the majority of them still view him favorably), yet are mad as hell now.
They also should go back in time and rally against Bush's $3 trillion in unfunded spending. Looks a little suspicious that they didn't say squat when a good-old white boy mortgaged their future (heck, the majority of them still view him favorably), yet are mad as hell now.
41
@39: Oh, you're speaking sociologically. So I guess that means you get to make up your own definitions for what words mean.
Pop quiz: If a member of one minority ethnic group expresses feelings of distaste for members of another minority ethnic group based on their membership in that group, and neither are the dominant group in their society, is it racism? Sociologically speaking?
Liberals claiming that only whites can be racist is one way that creeps like Beck are able to get so much traction with their bullshit.
Pop quiz: If a member of one minority ethnic group expresses feelings of distaste for members of another minority ethnic group based on their membership in that group, and neither are the dominant group in their society, is it racism? Sociologically speaking?
Liberals claiming that only whites can be racist is one way that creeps like Beck are able to get so much traction with their bullshit.
42
Someone needs to ask these people, "Have you ever considered something racist that was not racist against whites? Can you name an instance of racism against people of color?"
43
This bullshit makes my blood boil on so many levels.
a) The racism at the Tea Party rallies has been so blatant it's been impossible to ignore.
b) NAACP's response to Tea Party racism was not only legitimate, it was also benign and milquetoast. The NAACP never said "The Tea Party is racist," they merely addressed concern with the obvious racist elements of the Tea Party movement.
c) This response is filled with such anger, such ignorance, such hatred. It fails to even acknowledge any legitimate concerns the NAACP addressed, one can't help but label it racist in and of itself.
d) At the heart of this vitriolic attack, I can't help but read a small crumb of truth. Politics in this nation has borne a wealth of minority PACs that seem to thrive on the suffering of the minorities they claim to represent. I know I'm not the only gay man who's accused HRC of getting rich, kicking back and exploiting the injustices hurled upon the gays and lesbians they're allegedly representing. It's not entirely obscene to think that the NAACP has, in some way, done the same in its time.
When can we all just scream, "WHAT THE FUCK?!" and just sit back and get an honest answer from ANYBODY without the automatic ad hominem?
a) The racism at the Tea Party rallies has been so blatant it's been impossible to ignore.
b) NAACP's response to Tea Party racism was not only legitimate, it was also benign and milquetoast. The NAACP never said "The Tea Party is racist," they merely addressed concern with the obvious racist elements of the Tea Party movement.
c) This response is filled with such anger, such ignorance, such hatred. It fails to even acknowledge any legitimate concerns the NAACP addressed, one can't help but label it racist in and of itself.
d) At the heart of this vitriolic attack, I can't help but read a small crumb of truth. Politics in this nation has borne a wealth of minority PACs that seem to thrive on the suffering of the minorities they claim to represent. I know I'm not the only gay man who's accused HRC of getting rich, kicking back and exploiting the injustices hurled upon the gays and lesbians they're allegedly representing. It's not entirely obscene to think that the NAACP has, in some way, done the same in its time.
When can we all just scream, "WHAT THE FUCK?!" and just sit back and get an honest answer from ANYBODY without the automatic ad hominem?
44
@41 It's a common sociological definition of the term. It is used in technical discussions.
I do however, agree, that using that definition of racism, particularly in discussions with non-sociologists is counterproductive.
Not because white people have the right to define the term, or anything like that, but because it's simply a non-standard definition of the word, and it's confusing to people. Most people, and I think this probably applies to most non-whites, use the dictionary definition of racism - racial prejudice, hatred, bigotry, etc.
It only confuses the issue to insist on the sociological definition of the term, which often leads to statements that simply infuriate people because they think what you mean is that non-white people can't hate white people, or hold irrational and offensive beliefs about other races, which is quite plainly not true.
When you're discussing things with the general public is to remember that they're dumb, and don't read a whole lot, so unless you want to always preface your statements with an explanation of the terminology you're going to use, so that they can understand what you're talking about - it's best to simply use the common use definitions.
I do however, agree, that using that definition of racism, particularly in discussions with non-sociologists is counterproductive.
Not because white people have the right to define the term, or anything like that, but because it's simply a non-standard definition of the word, and it's confusing to people. Most people, and I think this probably applies to most non-whites, use the dictionary definition of racism - racial prejudice, hatred, bigotry, etc.
It only confuses the issue to insist on the sociological definition of the term, which often leads to statements that simply infuriate people because they think what you mean is that non-white people can't hate white people, or hold irrational and offensive beliefs about other races, which is quite plainly not true.
When you're discussing things with the general public is to remember that they're dumb, and don't read a whole lot, so unless you want to always preface your statements with an explanation of the terminology you're going to use, so that they can understand what you're talking about - it's best to simply use the common use definitions.
45
"When you're discussing things with the general public is to remember that they're dumb, and don't read a whole lot, so unless you want to always preface your statements with an explanation of the terminology you're going to use, so that they can understand what you're talking about - it's best to simply use the common use definitions. "
Or not, you know, patronize them with statements that amount to "you couldn't possibly understand because you did not attend the same liberal arts institution I did."
Or not, you know, patronize them with statements that amount to "you couldn't possibly understand because you did not attend the same liberal arts institution I did."
47
The sociological definition of the word "racism" is beside the point. The point is that it is always wrong to dislike someone because of the color of their skin.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (47) RSS