Where Have All the Racists Gone?
As a follow up to Sunday's column, an article from Slate on the curious phenomenon of an America where racism is always claimed to still exist by whites, but in which there are apparently no actual racists (except, of course, for skinheads). While it is true that there are certain "agents of outrage" who are quick to claim loudly (and preferably in front of television cameras) that any criticism of any minority is racism, it is also true that some whites have an almost pathological aversion to calling anyone short of Hitler a racist and recognizing anything less than a full-blown lynching as evidence of racism.
UPDATE: On a related topic, more on the double-standard being applied to Barack Obama regarding Jeremiah Wright.
UPDATE 2: Aaaand more. So which is worse? Someone (Obama) who sticks with his church even when the pastor says things he disagrees with? Or someone (McCain) who not only sucks up to the very Tele-Pharisees he denounced to gain his "maverick" credentials in 2000, but who changes his own religion in order to curry favor with them?
UPDATE 3: And yet more, this time from Glenn Greenwald.
Labels: Barack Obama, Racism, Religion, Tele-Pharisee
posted by The Local Crank | 12:48 AM
5 Comments:
One of the main thing that comes to mind for me about racism, is that every time they do one of those sting-type thing concerning minorities applying for loans, trying to move into white neighborhoods, etc, something always ends up quite amiss.
I think they should do a lot more of those, and come down hard on those found practicing discrimination. That would get rid of the root of the problem.
(Those who support racial preference/quota programs are also a form of racist, as they do think it is OK to punish a person for their skin color in the name of some greater good)
There are also the subtle but still racist comments that come out in the political campaigns. I've seen Democrat-supporters actually argue against running Obama because he is black, and a black man cannot win in white America.
"I think they should do a lot more of those, and come down hard on those found practicing discrimination. That would get rid of the root of the problem."
A black man and a white man both apply for a job. Both are equally qualified. The white man gets hired. Prove how the employer was "practicing discrimination."
"(Those who support racial preference/quota programs are also a form of racist, as they do think it is OK to punish a person for their skin color in the name of some greater good)"
Again, there haven't been quotas in 30 years. And how is giving a some consideration to race a "punishment" to whites? Where is the proof of widespread white unemployment due to this pernicious policy? And why is it so inherently unfair to use preferences to partially undo the effects of historical and current racism?
"I've seen Democrat-supporters actually argue against running Obama because he is black, and a black man cannot win in white America."
I don't consider that racist, just hard-nosed (and in my opinion wrong) political calculation. Just like Democrats who thought JFK couldn't win because he was Catholic weren't automatically bigoted, either. Or Democrats who think Hillary can't win because she's a woman.
"Prove how the employer was "practicing discrimination."
Go ahead and do it. If you can't prove someone did something wrong (and I'm not even demanding super-strict proof), then you have no justification for action. There is such a thing as due process. And as for proof, these "stings" can get rather clever, and I really think they are underused.
"And how is giving a some consideration to race a "punishment" to whites"
Using skin color as any qualification for a job/etc for any race is a punishment for any person who comes out on the wrong side of it. How about by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin?
"I don't consider that racist, just hard-nosed (and in my opinion wrong) political calculation."
I see your point and agree with it, as far as motivations go. These hard-nosed folks don't hate Obama for sure. However, let's compare the hard-nosed to the KKK-type racism. While the logic differs in between the "Obama is black" starting point and the "he should not run" end point, the starting and end points are the same, aren't they? That makes both situations look pretty close.
Related to this is the argument I heard against Gore-Lieberman back in 2000. Some said that Lieberman would be bad in such a high office, because we need to deal with Arab countries that hate Jews. Same sort of thing.
"If you can't prove someone did something wrong (and I'm not even demanding super-strict proof), then you have no justification for action."
And that would be my point. And a point in favor of affirmative action.
"Some said that Lieberman would be bad in such a high office, because we need to deal with Arab countries that hate Jews. Same sort of thing."
I see that as different. Mainly because I really don't give a load of flaming dingo's kidneys what other countries think of our pluralistic, multiracial, multiethnic society (as opposed to what they think of our foreign policy, which damn near the entire world currently hates). If they can't handle a Jew as Vice President or a black woman as Secretary of State, screw 'em. America should aplogize to no one for the freedoms we enjoy. They can learn to deal with it or they can get used to no foreign aid from us.
"And that would be my point. And a point in favor of affirmative action."
As long as the program does not include any sort of preferences (which are attempts to skirt around quotas). There are ways to do this which do not involve acts of racism.
"Mainly...."
Could not have worded it better myself. Even if I do not see it as being so different. I also remember this sort of thing coming up over the question of sending a black ambassador to apartheid-era Saudi Arabia. And, come to think of it, the same argument used against having a President Hillary Clinton be able to be respected by places like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Post a Comment
<< Home