The Racism Thing

Recently, Alan wrote in a response to a quote I posted from Alpheus:

"But there's a general assumption on the Left that antipathy toward Obama has something to do with his race."

I agree that we should not impugn others motives, but using a generalization to criticize the use of a generalization is not especially effective.

A number of recent comments by people on the Left have made the generalization, at least in my mind, more accurate. Or at least demonstrated the relevance of Alpheus' original generalization. Whether it is purely accurate is open for debate. Probably not, like all generalizations, but I did have some things to say on the topic.

There is actual racism in this country. The blatant type is, thank God, dying out. Unfortunately, this has been replaced to some extent by a more nefarious hidden racism. Yet, there are those who are seriously misguided in their crusade to drive it out and cynical in identifying it.

For example, Jimmy Carter:

I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American.

Also:

There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.

I'll agree that some of the people protesting against Obama are racially motivated, but certainly not all. Furthermore, even if some are, pointing it out is not particularly helpful. None of the people who are against Obama are protesting that he is black. They are protesting specific policy proposals.* So, in an important way, who gives a shit of they are racists? They aren't asserting that whites are superior and a black man should not be president. They are asserting that his health care plan sucks and he's spending too much money. Those policy issues can and should be addressed without calling any of the opponents racists. It's just not helpful.

And then there's the CEO of Acorn accusing its attackers of racial motivation:

Much of this has to do with the right’s assessment of ACORN’s effectiveness: we play a critical role, on a massive national scale, in organizing low income people of color to participate in elections and to campaign in support of a progressive agenda.

But let’s also be clear: much of this has to do with race.

The attacks on ACORN are part of the same rightwing machinery that has been attacking President Obama by calling the President a racist, that has been mobilizing all-white tea parties to rail against immigrants, and that has attacked Eric Holder, Sonia Sotomayor, and, with more success, Van Jones. We have seen a conscious strategy from the right to divide and conquer the nation using race, and the attacks on ACORN must be understood in this context.

Let's say I even grant the first point. Republicans don't like Acorn because it gets people of color out to vote for Democrats. It still does not change that numerous Acorn employees are morally retarded. (Incidentally, I got a comment on my previous post accusing me of responding like a 7th grader. I was perplexed, but then realized that the problem was the commenter must not have understood the meaning of the word retarded -- slow or limited in capabilities -- and thought I was calling Acorn employees mentally retarded.) Nobody told the Acorn offices, multiple offices, to act immorally, unethically, and suggest illegal activities. To suggest that the motivation of those investigating was racially motivated is a cynical attempt to divert attention.

The problem is, of course, related to the difficulty in identifying motives. Only God knows what lurks within the hearts of men. We can only surmise based upon word and deed. I certainly won't deny that there are racially motivated people in this country, but oddly the success of the civil rights movement has also made it more difficult to combat.

A black man passed over for a job might honestly believe the problem was racism, but one of the other candidates may have been a better fit for reasons completely unrelated to race. Likewise, a racist employer can always find some reason to not hire somebody.

Part of the problem that results is that people who are looking for racism can find it even if it doesn't exist where they are looking. Any interaction where a member of an out group receives an unfavorable outcome is potentially a incident of bias. Yet, it is potentially not. It really depends on circumstances, and too often many people jump to conclusions based upon their own perceptions or misconceptions.

In the case of Obama, I have to ask who really gives a shit if some of his detractors are racist? The issue with racism is not that people are racist per se, but if racists hold power over fate of those whom they despise. Obama is the most powerful man in the world. So, who gives a shit if some wackos hate him for being black? People hate the president for all sorts of stupid reasons. It doesn't really matter.

Furthermore, if the anti-Obama sentiment is primarily race related and considering that more than half the people in this country voted for him, then the anti-Obama sentiment will always be a minority movement. If we further assume that no racists voted for Obama that is.

The issue I have with the Carter statements is the issue that it presupposes that there must be an irrational, evil reason for opposing Obama's policies. It must be racism or something nefarious, as opposed to the idea that people may genuinely disagree. This happens to be one of the most annoying things about Carter to me, his moral superiority and sermonizing when he, as far as I can tell, is so divorced from reality and motivated almost entirely by his emotions that he can't see the big picture. But I'll leave that aside for now. Nevertheless, his comments distract from the issue at hand, health care reform, and undermine the cause of anti-racism. It undermines anti-racism by drawing attention to an issue that is almost entirely irrelevant to the problems of racism. Put simply -- this isn't about some little, old, black lady having to give up her seat or not able to eat at a restaurant; no, in this case the black man is the one in power. Bringing up racism in this context just sounds silly.

On the Acorn issue, the counter-accusations of racial motivations appear, as I mentioned before, cynical. Personally, I don't particularly care if the people who posed as a pimp and hooker were grand dragons or wizards or whatever of the KKK. On the tapes Acorn employees, at several locations mind you, acted in morally reprehensible ways. Claiming racial bias as part of explanation for this bad conduct again undermines the cause of anti-racism because it appears to be both a cynical act and a scape goat for people of color acting immorally. Neither of these are particularly helpful.


----------------------
* Or more accurately their flawed understanding of what he is proposing.