In an earlier thread, trying to make the case that liberals are racist, Niels Jackson wrote:
If you think that liberals don’t use the term “race traitor,” you haven’t looked very hard. Try reading up on what some liberals say about Clarence Thomas. For example, Manning Marable explicitly says that Thomas (and other conservative blacks) are race traitors. So does a book edited by two Georgetown professors. Use Google, and you’ll find plenty more references. (Such as this Margaret Cho article about none other than Michelle Malkin, or this article about Condi Rice.)
David of the admirable blog The Debate Link (which currently has a good post, quoting an anonymous comment-writer, criticizing left-wing racism) seemed to endorse Niels’ links, as well.
I have to wonder if Niels and David even read the links in question. For instance, as the Daily Howler link Niels provided explained, the book edited by two Georgetown professors (Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment) didn’t call Thomas or anyone else a “race traitor”; it objected to that sort of attack. As the Daily Howler – again, in the link Niels himself provided – points out, a Lexis-Nexis search found only one example of Thomas being called a “race traitor” in any mainstream news outlet; clearly, the term was not commonly used.
Although it’s true that Margaret Cho used the term “race traitor,” in context she used it ironically; her point is that it’s a positive thing that Asians and people of color are free to be right-wingers nowadays, even though she finds Malkin’s view odious. Cho writes:
I feel kind of proud, that racial politics have progressed to the point where we can have a young Asian American woman who doesn’t have to live within the constraints of a minority identity, which presumes liberal bias just by nature of the fact that if you are oppressed by the majority, you would want to place yourself against the majority.
Cho’s essay, along with other links Niels provided, shows that what’s going on is more subtle than right-wingers admit. There are liberals who call right-wing blacks “race traitors,” but the liberals in question are disproportionately people of color. More specifically (although Cho is an exception), they’re usually Black. “Race traitor” is not the typical vocabulary used by liberals when talking about non-white conservatives; but it’s sometimes part of the vocabulary used by Blacks when having debates that take place within the Black community.
I don’t find Blacks using the term “race traitor” objectionable the way I’d find the same term used by whites (liberal or not) objectionable. It’s a little like when Chris Rock uses the word “nigger.” I don’t think it’s acceptable for whites to say “nigger,” by and large. But at the same time, it’s not my place, as a white guy, to police the language Blacks use when having debates about Black identity politics within the Black community. That’s none of my business.
Returning to the point, as far as I can tell, Black lefties are the only lefties to use the term “race traitor” with any regularity. It’s ridiculous for conservatives to imply that this is proof of widespread racism among lefties.
Context – that is, what race the speaker is – does matter. It’s clear that when blacks use the word “nigger” or its derivatives, they’re not using it in the anti-black way it’s typically been used by white racists. Similarly, the analogy between right-wing racists who have used “race traitor” (for whites who favored civil rights), and anti-racist Blacks who use the same term, doesn’t hold much water. Read this Manning Marable essay Niels linked to, for example:
This conservative wing of the black middle class during the 1980s and 1990s, in effect, committed “racial suicide,” in the sense that it disavowed any sense of obligation, or “linked fates,” with what happens to the masses of disadvantaged African Americans. There is no sense of personal responsibility or accountability to a political project that is race-based. They wish to be judged as “individuals,” not as part of the larger “black community.” They explicitly reject any notions of the concept that their career advancement was largely a product of a mass, democratic movement to challenge structural racism. So in this limited sense, the reactionary wing of the black political elite has stopped being “black” in terms of its historical function as an oppositional group against racism. They are essentially “race traitors”: dedicated to the destruction of all racial categories, or even for some the collection of data indicating racial discrimination; critical of the liberal integrationist establishment; and enthusiastic boosters of capitalism as we know it.
Would anyone seriously argue that this is no different from a KKK rant?
The bottom line is, blacks who argue about if Clarence Thomas is a “race traitor” are making an argument about solidarity, and trying to hold the line against racism. It’s not our place, as whites against racism, to tell Blacks what language they should or shouldn’t use; whether or not I like the term “race traitor,” in this context, is irrelevant. In contrast, whites who complain about white “race traitors” are hoping to protect the racist status quo (or return to an even more racist past). To claim that the two uses of “race traitor” are equal is to ignore the substance of the two positions, and reduces anti-racism to a fuss about vocabulary. No, thank you.
Amp, just to make sure I understand what you’re trying to say:
If a black person calls another black person a “race traitor,” people of other races have no right to criticize this, even if they think it’s offensive, because it’s about racial solidarity.
If a white person calls another white person a “race traitor,” everybody should criticize this and find it offensive, because it’s about protecting a racist status quo.
I think your post is pretty good as far as it goes, but you didn’t address the interracial aspect of the discussion on the other thread, which I inferred was primarily about white people labeling “atypical” minorities as “race traitors.” I would like to see your thoughts on that facet.
I find the phrase “race traitor” offensive, regardless of who is using it and why, and I don’t think criticizing its use in the black community should be a “black thing” only. White people aren’t the only racists in this country.
Racism only has real meaning when it can be used to oppress people. Yeah, that might sound harsh, and it may hurt some people’s feelings, but people (white people especially) need to get over it. Racism is part of a system. It includes economic oppression, limited social visibility, restricted opportunities, unfair treatment under the law and violent retrobution for those who act out against the system. A black person who calls white people ‘cracker’ may hurt your feelings, but it sure as hell isn’t racism. Prejudice maybe, but it won’t stop you from getting a job, going to school, shopping without harassment and a million other things that white people take for granted as their god-given rights.
“If a black person calls another black person a “race traitor,” people of other races have no right to criticize this, even if they think it’s offensive, because it’s about racial solidarity.”
Lee,
Why would you personally be offended by this? Assuming you’re a white guy, what offense could a statement by an african-american about another african-american give you? Is it just offensive because it’s mean? I’m completely serious. I have no clue why non-blacks would have a stake in that scenario.
At the risk of seeming overly-fussy about wording, Lee, I’d never say that people of other races have no “right” to criticize. Everyone has a “right” to criticize – it’s in the first amendment.
Nonetheless, I don’t think it’s a good idea for whites who are anti-racist to spend their time trying to find racism in the way that Blacks talk to other Blacks about race and racism. There are lots of more significant sorts of racism for Whites to worry about. If a bunch of black activists are talking among themselves about racism, what’s the best anti-racist use of my time – to try and police how they’re talking (which takes up not only my time but also theirs), or to editorialize against something like the racial pay gap?
You wrote:
If it were a case of a white liberal calling Clarence Thomas a “race traitor,” I’d object to that, yes. But I don’t think that’s nearly as common as some conservatives have implied.
Yes, but their racism – which is by far the most thoroughly institutionalized – is the racism that does the most harm, and therefore matters most.
IME, whites use the term, “race traitor” FTMP and its more explicit and offensive counterpart, against other whites. I don’t think of the individuals in these cases conservative alone, because a lot of conservatives don’t say these things, it’s more of an expression of racism by some individuals or groups of conservatives in this context.
I’ve been called both often enough, to have figured that part of it out, on top of the historic context from that vantage point as a White woman who has been viewed as betraying the White race(at least locally) on more than one occasion. Usually, it is yelled out in passing like from a speeding car, or by people who don’t stick around long enough to have a discussion about it. It’s a word yelled in anger, by cowards, in this context, as part of the agenda of promoting the status quo of white supremacism in our society.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard “race traitor” used by someone who isn’t White, either against a person of color or more commonly, against a White person. Not to say it hasn’t been used certainly, but other words with similar meanings are used more often here. I’ve heard liberal Whites use it against conservatives who are people of color(i.e. Thomas, Rice or a more regional favorite, Ward Connally) though they more often use “Uncle Tom”(which I also believe isn’t right). Though conservatives are guilty when it comes to branding liberal Black or Latino leaders or commentators/columnists as such, as well, even while they complain about liberals doing like.
To me, it just doesn’t feel appropriate to use those terms and others. It’s hard to explain it more than that on an intellectual level. I just don’t do it. And there’s no reason to criticize it. Whites have enough to do working when it comes to dealing with racism and white supremacy in our ranks, rather than even try to define what is and what isn’t in another racial group(as if it is somehow our god-given right to do so as has been said here)
(doesn’t mean I don’t think Connally b/c of 209 and his recent attempt to ban recording racial statistics by governmental agencies, in particular is a twit though. )
“Uncle Tom” is more commonly used, than “race traitor” here. Or “house slave”. I’ve heard both a lot in discussion but don’t use either. It’s like stealing from someone else’s venicular. There’s context to what those words mean that I’m not privy to, so it’s not my place to respond. Not every situation warrants a response.
As far as the N-word, it is never appropriate imo, to call a Black person that word under any circumstance. Just because it’s used often among African-Americans does not change that no matter how much Whites think it should be used by themselves. There’s a lot of difference of opinion to say the least, on its usage among African-Americans. For example, the couple I work with, who are older(around 60) loathe the word and wouldn’t tolerate its usage by family members or other people if it were used in their presense or they knew about it. Then in the neighborhood, there’s young men who use it in conversation with each other all the time. I think age, and what generation you lived and grew up in might play a role in its usage.
It’s an ugly word, with an ugly history, and it’s hard to hear it, and even write it down. The newspaper debated whether to use it in a headline once for a story(about a county-hired security guard who called protesters, including children the slur several times). It was the right call to use it, everyone agreed, though many people said even reading the word in that context, stung.
Just for the record, Ampersand, I wasn’t “trying to make the case that liberals are racist.” That is an incredible overstatement. I was simply rebutting the claim (made by another commenter) that no liberals ever use the term “race traitor.”
Sorry for misreading the reference to the Georgetown professors’ book. As they themselvse say:
Consider the record clarified: When it comes to terms like “race traitor,” “house Negro,” and similar pejoratives, those sorts of terms were actually used by the likes of Justice Thurgood Marshall, Spike Lee, and Emerge magazine. Alright, then.
Ampersand said: It’s not our place, as whites against racism, to tell Blacks what language they should or shouldn’t use; whether or not I like the term “race traitor,” in this context, is irrelevant.
Huh? Who says it’s “not our place” to say (if we believe this to be the case) that when a black person is accused of being a “race traitor,” he has been slurred with mean-spirited and racist language? Sure, Manning Marable isn’t the equivalent of the KKK. That’s a no-brainer. But it also seems to be a no-brainer that it is extremely intolerant (at the least) to try to denigrate other people’s opinions in such language.
People can legitimately differ about how best to address racism. It is simply foolish to accuse Clarence Thomas — who grew up in a segregated Georgia town — of not understanding racism. But he thinks, in good faith, that if the government is going to address racism, one important factor is that the government should itself treat all people equally, without applying different standards for jobs or college admissions. Agree or disagree with that idea, it isn’t crazy. In fact, it was simply the standard liberal belief in the 1960s and 1970s — treat people equally.
Now folks like Marable don’t believe in treating everyone equally; they believe that the history of racism is so devastating that more is needed to bring black people up to a position of equality. This isn’t a crazy position either.
But why should Marable and his ilk be free from criticism when they accuse Thomas of being a “race traitor” for the sole purpose of demonizing Thomas’s opinions?
In other words, why can’t I, as a white right-leaning person, say, “I like Clarence Thomas, and I appreciate his views and his experiences, and how dare someone else try to accuse him of not really being ‘black'”? I’m not supposed to be able to defend fellow conservatives from race-based attacks? How’s that?
Also, a more minor point, but Marable is ridiculously wrong in saying that Thomas is “dedicated to the destruction of all racial categories,” or “critical of the liberal integrationist establishment.” That first part isn’t true: Thomas is unique for the way that he writes with a deep appreciation for historically black colleges, for example, or for the passion that he brought to his opinion in the Virginia cross-burning case. Moreover, being “critical of the liberal integrationist establishment” is a reflection of the appreciation that Thomas has for black institutions.
Indeed, it is interesting to compare Thomas’s opinions linked above with the writings of Black Power advocates (I’m thinking of Stokely Carmichael here). Thomas was part of the Black Power movement for a while as a college student, and Carmichael’s writings reflect the same sort of resentment towards the unspoken notion that black institutions are by definition inferior (as if black people cannot learn unless surrounded by whites). In any event, it is ludicrous to claim that “Black Power” sentiments mean that a black person is a “race traitor.”
Why would you personally be offended by this? Assuming you’re a white guy, what offense could a statement by an african-american about another african-american give you?
Maybe because racism is offensive no matter who it happens to? (Leaving aside the question of whether this usage of ‘race traitor’ is actually racist.)
Same questions, different group:
Why should men be personally offended when a woman attacks another woman using sexist rhetoric? What stake do they have in it? And when misogyny perpetrated by men is such a bigger problem, aren’t they just wasting energy that could be better spent elsewhere?
Of course, there’s also a pretty vibrant anti-racism practice of whites using “Race Traitor” to praise white activism against white supremacy. The best known would have to be the journal “Race Traitor” started by David Roediger, author of the book “The Wages of Whiteness”. Anti-racism or anti-sexist liberals might demur, since part of our argument is that racism or sexism damages the advantaged group (Amp makes this point often and well about male supremacy). But it still effectively conveys that a lot of work for justice involves surrendering privileges that are not only dear but constitute one’s deepest identity.
J-ha, nice way of separating out the issues. I’m behind you on this. Other than that, nothing to add.
Why do people say that Clarence Thomas isn’t really black? Well, the position that to fight racism, we need to do nothing is a pretty white pleasing position, isn’t it? I hate cross burning and like HBCUs as much as the next person, but that’s not a coherent position against institutionalized racism. The thing is that blackness is a defined position, unlike whiteness. And for many people, blackness includes a position against institutionalized racism even if it might make whites uncomfortable, and also, remembering where you come from(as my mom says- Thomas benefited from AA, but now he doesn’t want anyone else to). Respect for other blacks is conveyed in actions, not words. He can say what he likes, but his loyalties are shown by his actions, and his actions haven’t been on our side. It’s on those grounds that his blackness is challenged. He can do what he likes, but others will critcize him.
No, “blackness” is not a “defined position.” That is not true in any conceivable sense. That’s the problem with both black and white racists: They assume that if they know someone’s skin color, they know everything there is to know about that person.
Thomas benefited from AA, but now he doesn’t want anyone else to.
That’s not exactly true: The only cases that have reached the Supreme Court during Thomas’s tenure have involved state governments that practice affirmative action. With state governments, Thomas holds them to a high standard of treating everybody equally. But that doesn’t mean that Thomas “doesn’t want anyone else” to have affirmative action. I don’t believe there has been any case whatsoever where Thomas said that private entities (such as General Motors, Harvard, etc., etc.) are forbidden from practicing affirmative action.
Plus, it’s very ironic that liberals criticize Thomas for being against affirmative action: The very reason that he always cites for being against state-government affirmative action is that it undermines black people’s success. And the way that this happens is that people look at a black person in a high position with suspicion: “Do you really deserve to be there, or did some white person give you 200 extra points on the SAT?” Etc., etc. The irony is this: Countless times, liberals have made this very accusation against Thomas being on the Supreme Court. That is, many liberals have said, “Thomas wasn’t really qualified for the Supreme Court; he was just put there because he was black.” I can’t even count how many times I’ve seen that accusation in print.
What a rich irony: These liberals are unwittingly doing their very best to confirm Thomas’s opinion of affirmative action, i.e., that it causes people to yell and whine about a successful black person supposedly being unqualified. Based on his own experience, Thomas takes the view: “Look, we black people are strong and noble, and we can succeed without handouts from whitey.” (Using the vernacular there, but that’s the whole gist of his opinion in the Michigan affirmative action case.)
That’s not an “anti-black” position. Just isn’t.
Blackness is not just a skin color- we in America, have developed a culture to help us through oppression, just as whites have a culture, in which words are exaulted over actions; this causes some confusion. His advancement was due to conservatives wanting to have a black face to advance anti black ideas. This involves a different value system than you are used to, so listen carefully. Actions and their results are what are being used to judge Thomas. We don’t care about what he says, we care about what he does. White people’s attitudes are their own problems, they would believe bad thihgs about blacks no matter what; why is he catering to their bigotry, instead of helping his own people? Blacks being able to be admitted to the gates of oppurtunity would show the greatness of black people better than being locked out, for any reason.
Niels, I’m trying my hardest not to take offense at what you’re saying, but guess what- I’m failing miserably.
Niels: “No, “blackness” is not a “defined position.” That is not true in any conceivable sense. That’s the problem with both black and white racists: They assume that if they know someone’s skin color, they know everything there is to know about that person.”
I’m sorry, but do you know what you’re talking about? Speaking as a BLACK PERSON, blackness is a defined position. It’s been defined by the historic use of racism by white people to oppress African-Americans and to place them in positions of inferiority and lesser privilege. Blackness is a state of being, true, but it is also viewed by BLACK PEOPLE as a position in society. My blackness puts shapes and defines my social mobility. This may be something that you as a white man (?) fail to see because of your PRIVELAGE.
And I believe J-Ha made it clear- black people cannot be racist. In order to be racist, you have to be in a position of power to use your beliefs to oppress another group of people. In other words, a target group CANNOT be racist. Prejudiced as all hell, yes. But NOT racist. So please stop using the term “black racist” because its just wrong.
(sorry for all the caps. I’m not yelling- I simply can’t figure out how to bold individual words)
And as for the Thomas… By opposing Affirmative Action, Thomas is essentially stating that he doesn’t want any other black people to benefit from AA. Affirmative Action is twisted by conservatives and portrayed as a program that lets under qualified minorities get ahead of more qualified white people. In reality, affirmative action is a program that gives qualified minorities an equal chance to compete in society that doesn’t want them to. By opposing the AA, and by accepting and disseminating the conservative’s twisted perception of AA, Thomas is betraying the black community. Yes, there are some problems with AA; If Thomas wanted to address those, all he had to say was, “well, there are some issues with AA that need to be worked out, but it still has an important purpose”. I would have understood that. But instead he chose to renounce AA as a whole, act as if the world is equal so we should all be colorblind, and act as if black and white people can now prance hand in hand in a field of lilies. So you know what, I do consider Thomas to be a “race traitor” (although I prefer to describe it as betraying the black community). And in some ways I would also list Bill Cosby and Condoleeza Rice as betrayers of the black community.
As a black woman, I expect members of my community who succeed to such high profile positions to either advocate for black people and give back to their communities OR to just not do anything to screw it up for everyone else. Thomas has decided since he’s been on the bench that all of a sudden he doesn’t have a significant investment in the black community. My reaction- fine. Just don’t be surprised when the African-American community rejects you.
Sydney: I think we’re not understanding each other here.
You say “blackness” is a “defined position,” with the word “position” meaning something like “a place in society,” or “the way that society treats me.” Obviously, “blackness” affects someone’s “position” in society. No doubt about that.
But the way that Shannon was using the word “position” was to mean “belief” or “attitude.” She spoke of “a position against institutionalized racism,” for example. So when she said that “blackness” is a “defined position,” that means that people who are “black” are all supposed to have a “defined” belief about the world. And — what a miracle! — the way that all black people are supposed to think is exactly in agreement with Shannon. What a coincidence.
This is what I disagreed with. Call it “black racism” or “black prejudice,” whatever you like, but it is demeaning and insulting to believe that all black people have to agree with you in order for them to be “really black.” (I happen to think that “racist” is a better word. “Prejudice” literally means “pre-judging” someone. Shannon isn’t really prejudging anyone, but she is treating them as if their beliefs should be determined by race. Thus, “racism” is a better word.)
Shannon: You disagree with Thomas. Fine. But don’t pretend that he arrived at his beliefs from being “anti-black” or “not a real black” or any such nonsense. He arrived at his beliefs precisely because of his blackness (and as I said, you can trace his beliefs all the way back to the Black Power movement of the early 1970s).
as far as I can tell, Black lefties are the only lefties to use the term “race traitor” with any regularity.
Not quite. White lefties of the 1960s generation use it on occasion, about themselves. Seen this.
Shannon:
You keep saying, “Actions and their results are what are being used to judge Thomas. We don’t care about what he says, we care about what he does. ”
This makes no sense. The main way that Thomas affects the world is by “what he says” in his opinions. “What he says” is exactly “what he does” as a judge. They are the same thing.
If you’re trying to make a remark about how Thomas behaves in his personal life, you might be surprised to know the truth. According to one article, Thomas “meets regularly with a group of young drug addicts and with fifth-graders in an after-school program in Staunton, Va.” As another article puts it, “Thomas has developed life-changing one-on-one mentoring relationships with Washington-area schoolchildren.”
You might also be surprised to read more of Thomas’s actual opinions:
From United States v. Fordice (a segregation case):
From Chicago v. Morales (a case about a gang loitering ordinance):
From Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (the school choice case):
And finally, from Kelo v. New London (the recent eminent domain case):
This is someone who doesn’t care about black people? Please.
Sydney:
This is an absolutely bizarre position, but lets roll with it anyway. Does that mean poor whites can’t be racist since they obviously don’t hold any power to oppress a group of people? Can the white janitor working at the rainbow coalition office building be racist toward Jesse Jackson? Who has more power over the other? Who do you think will have more privilege and opportunity though out their lives the janitor’s son or Cynthia Tucker’s? Can Asians be racist (Michelle Malkin)?
The expectance that all blacks have to think same way on a list of issues seems like an incredibly racist idea. Do you think Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, or Janice Brown (as prominent black conservatives) are too dumb to realize they batting for the wrong team or that they have been tricked? It certainly couldn’t be that they, like other intelligent people, have thought carefully about certain issues and simply disagree with their assigned “black positions” and with the liberal illuminati.
Niels – links, please. It’s a pain to have to scroll through all that text.
Syd – Thomas provides a classic example of failing to send the elevator back down. Which makes sense, since he’s a conservative. I’m not at all surprised that black people are angry with him. It’s the same reason I dislike Phyllis Schlafly a lot more than I dislike many equally conservative men. They’re both pissing all over the very policies that allowed them to get to where they are.
“Do you think Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, or Janice Brown (as prominent black conservatives) are too dumb to realize they batting for the wrong team or that they have been tricked”
As far as I can tell (excuse me if I’m misreading your position, Sydney) she’s not accusing them of being dumb, she’s accusing them of being selfish. There’s a big difference.
Pingback: The Debate Link
I know you were trying for a reversal here, but I *would* have a problem with men calling women out on their misogyny. I would definitely wonder why they weren’t going after the root of the problem (other men) and I would probably suspect some sexist motives behind it. Paternalism may sometimes look like heroism, but it’s not.
Not to get too Humpty-Dumpty on people, but here is the definition of racism I was using when writing my original post (it’s from the Institute for Cultural Partnerships):
“Prejudice or discrimination based on an individual’s race. It can be expressed individually or through institutional policies or practices.”
Go visit this website.
I understand that others are using different definitions of racism when responding to my comment. Radfem in #5 and Kate in #7 expressed somewhat more clearly what I was trying to say.
As a white woman living in an area where the population is 80% black, I have heard my share of epithets directed against me, against members of my family, and against my neighbors. I have heard all combinations of white-on-white, white-on-black, white-on-Asian, black-on-black, black-on-Asian, black-on white, etc. name-calling, directed at family, acquaintances, local politicians, and national figures. My position still remains that “race traitor” is offensive, regardless of who is using it, and that you don’t have to be white to be racist (in the sense that I was using the term).
Amp, no, obviously we shouldn’t police or go out looking for what different groups are saying among themselves – why on earth should we do that? But if a conversation were taking place amongst people I knew in a social or business context where the term “race traitor” is used, I would try to let the speaker know my opinion at some point (when and where it would be most effective – could even be later, in private). Or as we have done in the Malkin case about a misogynist comment on a blog, we should post a dissenting comment or discuss it on our own blogs. The bigger problems deserve the bigger efforts, sure, but the incremental effect of small efforts should not be discounted, either.
As far as the impact of AA on minorities goes, I thought this article had some interesting things to say. Many of my friends and neighbors of color have commented at one time or another about having to prove they deserve to be where they are, which frequently passes me by because I’m white, but which I also have had to deal with on occasion as a woman in the sciences.
I agree it is selfish not to give a hand up to the ones who come after you, especially when you have benefited from assistance yourself, but isn’t it better to call someone selfish than a “race traitor”? As far as I can tell, most high-achieving people give back in some fashion, even if they keep it very quiet. Is “giving back” only valid if it appears on the cover of Ebony or gets profiled on PBS? I think Justice Thomas’ position on AA tends to reflect a conservative view that the most effective assistance comes from individuals, rather than the government. I don’t agree with his stance, because I think institutionalized discrimination needs an institutionalized solution in addition to individual effort, but I don’t think that it makes him anti-black. But then, I’m white, so what do I know?
Niels – links, please. It’s a pain to have to scroll through all that text.
I gave links. But I also included several quotes, because those are lengthy judicial opinions, and I was interested only in those passages where Thomas was clearly concerned about the problems faced by poor blacks. Plus, if all I did was provide links, I highly doubt that anyone would read even one of those opinions.
Here are two helpful hints:
1. Click on the far-right-hand sidebar, in the space underneath the little cursor that shows where you are on the webpage. Every time you click, the page scrolls down by one screen length.
OR:
2. If you have a “page down” button on your keyboard (look on the right-hand side), that too will cause a webpage to scroll down by one screen length.
That way, you can easily save an extra second or so when looking over the comments here.
I should make something clear before I go any further. I realized after talking to my gf last night that I did not make something very important clear. When I say that there is no such thing as a black racist, what I mean is that it is impossible for a black person to be racist to a white person. The power dynamic in the U.S. is such where a black person does not have the agency to implement racist power over a white person. This does not mean that minorities cannot be racist to each other. But for the purpose of this thread, I’m stating that black people cannot be “reverse racists” towards white people.
This being said, I would like to address Larry’s comment:
Larry: “This is an absolutely bizarre position, but lets roll with it anyway. Does that mean poor whites can’t be racist since they obviously don’t hold any power to oppress a group of people? Can the white janitor working at the rainbow coalition office building be racist toward Jesse Jackson? Who has more power over the other? Who do you think will have more privilege and opportunity though out their lives the janitor’s son or Cynthia Tucker’s? Can Asians be racist (Michelle Malkin)?”
Poor whites can be racist because they can use the privilege of being white to oppress minorities. You do not need to have money or high class status to act in an oppressive manner. By the simple virtue of being white, a person who chooses to can act in a racist fashion toward minorities. I’m and NOT saying that all white people are racist- I’m simply asserting that being white gives you a level of protection from persecution that other minority groups do not have. It also allows you to act in an oppressive manner if you so choose.
As I said above, Asians can be racist to other minority groups. However, I do not believe they can be racist against white people.
Larry: “The expectance that all blacks have to think same way on a list of issues seems like an incredibly racist idea. Do you think Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, or Janice Brown (as prominent black conservatives) are too dumb to realize they batting for the wrong team or that they have been tricked? It certainly couldn’t be that they, like other intelligent people, have thought carefully about certain issues and simply disagree with their assigned “black positions” and with the liberal illuminati.”
I never said that I think all black people should think the same way. My problem with Thomas, Sowell, and Brown isn’t that they’re conservatives. My mom is a die-hard republican. My problem is that they regularly take positions that HURT the black community. I do not think that they’re stupid- as much as I don’t like him, Thomas is not a stupid man. I do think, as Britgirl said, that they’re being incredibly selfish and that is what really angers me. Are you seriously telling me that you wouldn’t be angry if someone advocated for policies that clearly hurt your family?
And finally, please lose the condescending tone in your writing. You may not intend for it to come across this way, but you sound like you (presumably not a black man) are trying to tell me (a black woman) what is best for the black community.
Amp, could you fix my links, please? I thought I had closed everything properly, but now it looks as if I didn’t. Sorry.
Niels: “But the way that Shannon was using the word “position” was to mean “belief” or “attitude.” She spoke of “a position against institutionalized racism,” for example. So when she said that “blackness” is a “defined position,” that means that people who are “black” are all supposed to have a “defined” belief about the world. And … what a miracle! … the way that all black people are supposed to think is exactly in agreement with Shannon. What a coincidence.”
Niels, I think we understand each other perfectly. I just disagree with you. I would say that black people do have a position against institutionalized racism- that it’s bad! I would also assert that because black people have a shared heritage of oppression, that people who actively work against overcoming that oppression (Thomas, Sowell) are looked at with disgust by the black community. No one is saying that they don’t have a right to their own opinion. No one is saying that they’re “less black”. What people (like me) are saying is that they are betraying the black community. If you work against the best interests of a community you are part of, then you will be viewed as a traitor whether you like it or not. Not all black people have to agree with me or with Shannon. But I would say that the majority would and for damm good reason.
And I also disagree with your definition of prejudice and with your belief that Shannon’s statement was prejudiced (or racist). Yes, she (he?) believes that race should play a role in a person’s beliefs. So do I. What exactly is wrong with that? The fact that I’m a woman plays a role in my beliefs. The fact that I’m bisexual plays a role in my beliefs. What I’m disturbed by is the notion that race shouldn’t play a role in one’s beliefs. Race (at least for minorities) is a key part of individual identity. To deny that is to deny a possible source of one’s personal motivations and behaviors. Am I racist or prejudiced for stating this? Hell, no. Do I believe that race should be a sole determinant in formulating beliefs? No, but I do believe that for black people it has to play some role because of the institutionalized racism that is rampant in this country.
You may not intend for it to come across this way, but you sound like you (presumably not a black man) are trying to tell me (a black woman) what is best for the black community.
This wasn’t directed at me, but I’ll respond anyway.
So you’re a black woman. Why does that mean that you are infallible? Black people don’t all agree with each other — that’s the whole point of this discussion. Some black people think one way, some black people think another. What gives any of them the right to say, “I’m black; therefore I know what is best for the black community, and no one has any right to disagree with me.”
The same thing could happen in reverse, you know. Clarence Thomas could tell a rich and privileged white like Ted Kennedy, “Hey, I’m black, and I know what is best for the black community. How dare you try to tell me that affirmative action isn’t a demeaning thing, when the fact is that liberals like you are always using affirmative action as an excuse to bash me as unqualified. Since you’re white, you have no right to an opinion here.”
Or a white person could say the same to you. “If you’re not white, why are you opining on the problems of the white community? Leave it to us whites to figure out. And by the way, I’m white, so I know what is best for white people to do.”
All of those statements are ridiculous. And racist too. (I know, you want to define “racist” as an expression of power, but I don’t accept that definition.) Those statements are racist because they treat people not with respect and dignity, but with suspicion and hostility based on race.
Also, to expand on what Sydney said above, you have to look at racism as a SYSTEM. If you look at it all at an individual level, you can start to believe in “reverse racism” and all that tripe because you only see one story at a time “well, I’m poor and this rich black guy called me honkey trash. Isn’t that racism?” No, it isn’t. The system is set up to favor whites. It is also set up to favor rich over poor, man over woman, straight over gay. And it’s easy if you are poor, female, or gay to ignore the ways in which you enjoy other priviledge, but you can’t. And we can argue specifics all day. “What if I’m poor and gay, but white. Is a rich, straight black man still oppressed by me?” But that would be missing the point and it would only be a way of absolving people of responsibility. Because people want to believe that as long as they’re not at the very top of the pyramid (rich, white, straight, male) then they don’t have any hand in the oppression of people of color, women, gays, the poor. But that’s not the case. The fact that I benefit from being white doesn’t make mean I’m not oppressed for being gay, but I still benefit from being white and that is taking part in a racist system.
What j-ha just wrote. What is so hard to understand about that?
Lee, I think you need to understand that if I call Thomas a race traitor, I’m stating a fact. Much in the same way that I’m stating that the sky is blue. I know this seems callous, but IMO, if you act in a fashion which hurts the community of which you are a part, then you are betraying your community. If the community is grouped by race, then by that very definition you’re being a race traitor. The term has ugly connotations and frankly, I prefer not to use it simply because it doesn’t highlight the actual action so much as scream ‘insult’. This is why I’m far more likely to describe Thomas based on what I perceive his actions to be, rather than the term race traitor. I also think Thomas’s selfishness is what’s causing him to betray the black community. Selfish may be a nicer description, but it doesn’t fully capture Thomas’s actions.
Also Lee, giving back doesn’t need to be high profile. I’m sure that Thomas donates to charities all the time. But as prominent black man, whether he likes it or not, Thomas has a responsibility to the black community. That responsibility may not be something he asked for, but is something given to him by succeeding despite all the rampant institutionalized racism. I’m not saying he should become a democrat (although how he can support a party which has systematically worked to maintain the oppression of minorities is beyond me) but he should not accept the rhetoric that we now live in a color-blind society and as such AA, and AA type policies, are detrimental to black people. That is foolishness and he is way too smart to honestly believe that. Therefore I must conclude that he’s being selfish and choosing to betray his community.
* note that the last paragraph has a lot of my personal opinions and may not be representative of every black person.
I just disagree with you. I would say that black people do have a position against institutionalized racism- that it’s bad!
Justice Thomas would absolutely agree.
I would also assert that because black people have a shared heritage of oppression, that people who actively work against overcoming that oppression (Thomas, Sowell) are looked at with disgust by the black community.
Justice Thomas is not “actively working against overcoming that oppression.” Please read the cases that I quoted above before you say anything else. Justice Thomas is as concerned as anyone can be about helping minority children get a good education, helping minority communities rid themselves of gangs, protecting minority homeowners from having their homes taken away by wealthy white corporations. In each of those cases, liberals were staunchly on the other side.
What people (like me) are saying is that they are betraying the black community. If you work against the best interests of a community you are part of, then you will be viewed as a traitor whether you like it or not.
That is just not true. You’re making a key mistake here: You think that you alone know what the “best interests” of the black community are, and that if any black person disagrees, he is therefore a “traitor.” Now in some instances, this might be true. Everyone would agree that slavery was not in the black community’s best interests, and everyone would agree that the Africans who sold their fellow Africans into slavery were betraying those fellow Africans. No doubt about that.
But it is just implausible to use that kind of “traitor” language about someone like Clarence Thomas. He absolutely agrees with you that racism is a problem; it’s just that on one or two issues, he disagrees with you about the solution.
It’s as if two people were trying to put out a raging forest fire. One person wants to spray with a water hose, and the other wants to cover the area with dirt from a helicopter. They both agree that the fire is a problem, and they are both trying to solve that problem in their own way. It would be ludicrous for one person to accuse the other person of being a “traitor” and of trying to spread the fire. Disagree if you want, but at least be honest enough to admit that the other person is worried about the fire too.
Again, read the opinions that I quoted above. Also, read this law review article by a liberal black law professor. She concludes (page 94):
I think because racism has come to have two somewhat differing definitions, we’re talking a little at cross-purposes here. Some of us are talking about racism in terms of prejudice, and some are talking about racism in terms of discrimination and access to power.
I mostly agree with Sydney that it is (almost) impossible for a black person to be racist against a white person in a discriminatory sense, because the system in the U.S. today still has the balance of power on the side of the white person. For instance, the phrase “driving while black” – if the rich black man is pulled over because he’s driving a red BMW, that’s racist in the discriminatory sense.
However, it is possible for a black person to be racist against a white person in a prejudicial sense, as in the rich black man calling the poor white man in j-ha’s example “honkey trash.” I’ve mostly been talking about racism in this sense in my posts on this thread.
Niels, as a black woman I’m not infallible. But don’t you think that because I’m a black woman I might have a better idea of what’s going on in the black community? Don’t you think that it would be offensive to not only presume you have some special knowledge about the black community that I didn’t, and then proceed to relate that information to me in a condescending fashion? Would you presume to tell a woman, with your voice dripping paternalism, that you know more about misogyny? (Just in case the answer to that is yes, you really shouldn’t. It’ll piss us off).
The statements you provided are completely off base and distract from the main point. I’m not even going to comment on them aside from saying: You don’t get to take the “moral high road” here. No one is saying that white people don’t have a right to express opinions and commentary on the black community or vis versa. What I took issue with was the way Larry chose to respond to my comment. Don’t try and twist my intent.
However, your refusal to accept racism as an expression of power kind of tells me a lot about how you view race relations. You don’t actually listen to black people do you? Because there is not a black person that will tell you that racism is NOT an expression of power. You cannot expect black people to take your words as valid if you refuse to acknowledge what is a basic fact of racism. The definition of racism you’re using is not up to date and it certainly is not how black people (you know, the target group) would define racism.
Next time why don’t you go after my whole argument instead of latching on to the specific criticism that pertained to the delivery of a message, and was not even directed to you.
Sydney:
So then, how would said janitor act to oppress Jesse Jackson or other blacks? What specific actions? Since it obviously isn’t helping his station in life, how can he cash in on his “white privilege”? Can someone half white/ half black be racist toward half Asian/ half white?
*sigh*
Niels, giving me a decision to read in which Thomas doesn’t say “racism is great!” does not mean that he isn’t working against the black community’s interest. Please give me some credit for having a brain. Yes, I understand perfectly well that disagreeing on solutions is the problem. However, his reasoning is what I take issue with. Not the fact that we disagree.
Here is an example of what bothers me about Thomas as taken from the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy:
“In the United States v. Morrison, the provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) that gives victims of gender-motivated violence a private right of action against their assailants. In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down the law, holding that the Commerce Clause did not provide Congress with the authority to enact the civil remedy portion of VAWA, since the provision was found not to be a regulation of activity that “substantially affected” interstate commerce; and secondly, because the enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not provide Congress with authority to enact the provision.”
Seems unrelated doesn’t it. I mean what does VAWA have to do with racial civil rights? Two words: commerce clause.
“With Thomas and four other justices declining to extend the enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact VAWA, “the unfortunate consequence of a series of political decisions harking back to Reconstruction” occurred, said Jack Balkin, a law professor at Yale. The 14th Amendment is arguably the natural home of civil rights legislation, as it guarantees equal citizenship, and it gives Congress power to enforce equality rights. Balkin elaborates, “We should recognize what the framers of the 14th Amendment intended: Congress has an independent power and obligation to promote and protect equal citizenship and civil rights.” Therefore, if Congress believes that a law is necessary and proper to promote equal citizenship, it should have the power to pass it “without using the fiction that inequality affects interstate commerce.”
Balkin’s point seem reasonable, no? So while Thomas isn’t saying, “racism is awesome!” what he’s doing is setting the ground work for eliminating the abilites of Congress to protect civil rights. And finally, this last bit:
“The effects of Morrison have undermined civil rights generally and women’s safety issues in particular. “The Rehnquist Court’s ruling in U.S. v. Morrison is a setback for women’s rights and a triumph for those that seek to roll back 30 years of federal civil rights law under the guise of states’ rights,” said Kathy Rodgers. “The Court has slammed shut the courthouse door, wished women good luck, and sent us back to the states for justice.”
Gotta say I agree with Kathy. Thomas ACTIVELY works against the black community when he supports decisions that lead the eventual erosion of civil right. If you want to read more about the way Thomas is putting the screws to the black community, click here
Oh, you got her there. A white janitor can’t bring Jesse Jackson down therefore racism is meaningless. As long as some white people are poor, then they don’t have white priviledge.
Hey, wait. Maybe white priviledge is more than just whether or not you have money.
Nah, that’s just anti-white talk!
j-ha
Rather than misstating what I said (the “racism is meaningless” garbage) why not answer the question?
When you put white priviledge in quotation marks like that it conveys your doubt as to the existence of such a thing. And if white priviledge doesn’t exist then racism as a system seems pretty meaningless and all we have are individual prejudices that mean nothing in a larger context.
And as to answering the question: Well, could I give an answer you would accept. As I said before, it seems to me that you equate priviledge solely with income level. Isn’t that why you put your hypothetical janitor next to Jesse Jackson instead of another, black janitor?
I didn’t mean any offense; I certainly don’t understand everything there is to know about being black in America. I readily admit that.
I do address the rest of your arguments, though. Please scroll above and read the rest of what I wrote and quoted from Thomas’s opinions. It’s totally unfair to say that Thomas is ignoring (much less working against) the rest of the black community. That just doesn’t fit with the reality of many, many opinions that he has written.
Do you intend to address Thomas’s actual opinions at any point?
Larry, I’m starting to wonder if you’re deliberately trying to be thick about this.
Larry: “So then, how would said janitor act to oppress Jesse Jackson or other blacks? What specific actions? Since it obviously isn’t helping his station in life, how can he cash in on his “white privilege”?”
Before you read further, please see J-Ha’s excellent comment (#29).
Larry do you understand what institutionalized racism is? I don’t mean to sound insulting here, but if you truly don’t understand what it is and how it works than what I’m going to say is going to make no sense. If you don’t, please say something. Anyway, that janitor may not be able to directly oppress Jesse Jackson. But he can contribute to the institution of racism by tapping into his white privilege and use a racial slur against a black co-worker in front of other white co-workers. He may be given daytime working hours over a black co-worker because he is considered more “presentable”. With this example he may not have control over what hours he works, but he is benefiting from institutionalized racism. The point is that there are a hundred different ways in which your janitor’s privilege allows him to engage in racist behavior or to directly benefit from the oppression of black people.
As for your “Can someone half white/ half black be racist toward half Asian/ half white?” comment, bi-racial people are not viewed as white. Despite how they may personally identify, society accepts them by their non-white status. Therefore, someone who is mixed with black and white cannot oppress a black person in the same manner as a white person. Secondly, I’ve already said that minorities can be racist to one another- although I think we need to be careful about how we use that term because white racism manifests itself in a very different fashion than minority racism and also has much different effects.
Niels, I try not to get tied up with the exact wording of Thomas’s opinions because I honestly believe the impact of Thomas’s opinions are far more important than what he may or may not say in his judicial opinions.
This being said I do love reading judicial opinions being a law student and all. So please look at comment #36. (oh wait, its awaiting moderation for some reason so this may be why you haven’t seen it).
Anyway when my comment is accepted you’ll see that this opinion exemplifies to me what makes Thomas so dangerous. On the surface of his opinions, he is technically not doing anything that would directly betray the black community. But in reality he is setting the ground work for some serious civil rights problems should we have a congress that doesn’t place a high priority on civil rights. And many of us believe we have just that in George W. I refuse to believe that Thomas is not intelligent enough to understand the full impact of his decisions, so I must conclude that for Thomas, civil rights may not be a high priority for him. Thomas’s interpretations of the law are what scare me and a lot of other black people and make me describe him as a betrayer of the black community.
I’m not sure how this works, but apparently you wrote a comment up above that doesn’t appear?
Anyway, you say: Niels, I try not to get tied up with the exact wording of Thomas’s opinions because I honestly believe the impact of Thomas’s opinions are far more important than what he may or may not say in his judicial opinions.
This makes no sense at all. It’s as if I said, “I try not to get tied up with the exact wording of Sydney’s posts, because I honestly believe that the impact of her posts is more important than what she says in those posts.”
It’s trying to make a distinction where there is none.
And anyway, what matters in the cases that I quoted above is NOT just limited to the “wording,” but the fact that Thomas was voting the way he did in part because of a concern for the black community. No honest person can deny his motivation of concern.
Sydney: “Before you read further, please see J-Ha’s excellent comment”
OK, lets look at that for a minute, becuase I think there is a fundamental disagreement.
j-ha:
Systems have structure and can be diagramed. Since the supposed racist system’s components are made up of individual people (I think we can agree that buildings can’t be racist) and a system’s components (people) must “do something” for the system to do anything, then peoples actions must contribute directly to output of the system (racism). Where in the diagram does the white janitor fit and what action does he take to contribute to the racist output? For the concept to have any merit the actions he takes must be actions not available (or not reciprocal) to a black co-worker.
I do not believe in this magically, nebulous “system” concept. It is my opinion that individual people are racist by doing individually racist things and saying racist things. I don’t think genetics plays any role as in this supposed “system” where white people seem to be born as components in this system. If a black guy doesn’t get the job because he is black, that’s racist. If a white guy doesn’t get the job because he is white, that’s racist. The race of the interviewer/employer is irrelevant.
Anyway, you say: Niels, I try not to get tied up with the exact wording of Thomas’s opinions because I honestly believe the impact of Thomas’s opinions are far more important than what he may or may not say in his judicial opinions.
This makes no sense at all.
It actually makes a lot of sense. His motives for voting the way he does doesn’t matter nearly as much as the impact of his votes.
Jake —
What she apparently meant to say was “the impact of Thomas’s VOTES are [is] more important than what he may or may not say in his judicial opinions.”
That at least makes sense. It’s still misguided, of course.
Niels- yeah, I wrote a comment that’s showing up on my computer as #36 that isn’t showing up. Perhaps because I put a link in there and I haven’t done that before?
But as for whether what I said about not getting tied up in Thomas’s exact wording makes sense, perhaps I was to blasé about my statement. What I meant was that Thomas is not going to say anything that outwardly hurts the black community in his decisions. The closest he’s actually come to this is in the AA rulings. Of course he’s going to frame his decisions as being what’s best for the black community. So I prefer not to examine just the individual ruling but to place them in a larger context. Which I did in comment #36 but unfortunately, it isn’t showing up right now. To give another example, I can say I’m not homophobic but if I make decisions or perform actions that lead to a gay bashing, then hey- I’m probably homophobic. IOW, a person’s outward claim isn’t necessarily reflective of their true intentions.
Jake: “It actually makes a lot of sense. His motives for voting the way he does doesn’t matter nearly as much as the impact of his votes. ”
Thanks Jake, you stated in a more consice fashion what I have been trying to.
I do not believe in this magically, nebulous “system” concept. It is my opinion that individual people are racist by doing individually racist things and saying racist things
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. It just happens to be wrong. Speaking as a academic sociologist, the fact that there is a racial system in society existing prior to individuals, that they garner meaning and interactive rules through in regards to race is a basic a concept as evolution is to a biologist.
Yes, there are individuals, and the manner that agency and structure interact (ie individuals and the social system) is the cause for discussion within those of us that study societal forms for a living, not whether either of those exist or not. Also, I have no idea where you ‘needs to be diagramed’ theory came from.
Moreover, we aren’t arguing from a position of genetics, we are looking at race as socially constructed societal cateogories whose reality is entirely predicated on the basis of a bunch of assumptions and practises that existed prior to the birth of current generations, and while it will certainly change in form, will exist after these generations die off.
White people gain racial privilege by the very fact of existing as white within a racial system that privileges their race over those of others. They perpetuate that system not only by not acknowledging it, but also by performing racism that contributes to the stability of that system.
This why social context and social positioning so phenomenonly alters meaning when it comes to actions and discourse. One behaviour as performed by a member of one social group simply does not have the same meaning as the same behaviour when performed by a member of another social group.
I happen to completely agree with what Sydney is saying, and it fits excellently within current and historical understandings of how race operates socially.
Larry,
So what were Jim Crow laws. Hell, what was slavery. Just the decision of some individual land-owners to own people? Did they occur in a vacuum? Or were they made possible because there was a belief structure in place that said whites were superior and therefore in charge of every other race? And yeah, I’m sure you’ll counter that slavery and jim crow are in the past and you’re talking about today “don’t blame white people today for the mistakes of our ancestors blah blah blah.” But people love to believe that the moment something is outlawed, that society magically changes its opinions in accordance with the law. And that the effects of hundreds of years of being less than human according to both the law and public opinion can be erased in half a century. They can’t.
Your white janitor has the whole history of this country backing him up. When he went to school he learned about all the great things white men did (even if they were slave-owning whites) but he knows only a few names of great black leaders. He lives in a society where black crime is over-hyped and sensationalized and white crime is, oftentimes, ignored or excused. He grew up with centuries of stereotypes about black men (aggressive, stupid, violent) and women (exotic, mammy-esque, bitches) that are rarely challenged. If he is charged with a crime, he will receive better treatment in the courts. He will be less likely to receive the death penalty because he is white. He lives in a country where all the presidents have been white, the vast majority of congress is white and chances are this will never be presented as odd/wrong, but simply left as is of proof of white superiority.
And all of this is merely the tip of the iceberg.
Now, you want me to compare him to Jesse Jackson b/c, whether you admit or not, by asking me to compare the two you are hoping that I’ll get confused and mix up racial oppression with economic oppression. Nope. Won’t happen. Just because fake janitor’s white priviledge doesn’t put him “above” Jesse Jackson doesn’t mean it’s worthless. Oppressions intersect. They do not form a neat pyramid or graph. This doesn’t negate their existence. Asking to compare someone at the bottom of economic oppression to someone closer to the top is a silly way to talk about racism and, imo, just a way to avoid any real issues.
Hmmm…
“whether you admit it or not” should read “whether you know it or not.” I don’t think Larry’s resorting to evil trickery.
Also, what Sarah said.
I’m also going to chime in with a “what sarah says” comment.
(thanks sarah & j-ha. if I had to try and explain one more time how racism involves systemic oppression I was going to bite through something!)
Sydney, sorry, something’s wrong with my browser today – it’s not refreshing properly or something. I didn’t see your post #31 until just now.
By your definition, then yes, Clarence Thomas is a race traitor. But then, by your definition, *anyone* in the black community who takes actions that are detrimental to the community is a race traitor; the *only* members of the black community who are actually called race traitors are the ones who take positions similar to those of the white establishment, which is why I think it’s racist to use the term.
Amp,
Perhaps you are intellectualizing and prioritizing the racial terms beyond common utility. For me, it is discomforting to hear marginalizing racial and sexual terms, in that (for one) it gives tacit approval for others to do the same, and it reinforces the boundaries that are being difficult to break down. It is vary easy to use language that places people into camps that many quickly understand; a preexisting stereotype. It takes thought to work out how we feel and voice it in a way that accurately and openly describes what we see. In the case of Chris Rock, he often uses sarcasm and irony coupled with racial terms to illustrate his points against those very stereotypes. (It still is discomforting.) I received an “alert” (Don’t you love it? They are still trying to convert me.) from some conservative colleagues about Rocks’ monologue on abortion. When I listened to it, it was apparent that he was not supporting abortion, but illustrating it with irony. Many folks get hung up on the words.
“Race Traitor” is a terrible distinction assuming there is an accepted behavior predetermined by a group that is contrary to a given norm. I call that racism. I do see your point though of people accusing folks of one race from using terms amongst themselves as outside of another group’s criticism. My favorite teacher says the same; remove the beam from your eye before the splinter from another’s, and similarly, do not cast stones unless you are free of the same sin.
Niels said,
“But he thinks, in good faith, that if the government is going to address racism, one important factor is that the government should itself treat all people equally, without applying different standards for jobs or college admissions. Agree or disagree with that idea, it isn’t crazy. In fact, it was simply the standard liberal belief in the 1960s and 1970s … treat people equally.”
I am a firm believer in Affirmative Action to treat effect equality in that treating people equally does not always equate with treating them the same. The problems many marginalized folks deal with are economically founded. It is a strange coincidence that the economic boundaries frequently follow race and gender lines. Until we can provide equal access to quality education, healthcare, and representation, there needs to be allowances made to help others who do not get the benefits of folks more equal then they are. Blessings.
j-ha, and Sydney thanks for your posts, especially for putting the myth of reverse racism(against whites) out there for what it is, pure rubbish.
I come from a city which pays off quick settlements for absolutely ridiculous “reverse” racial and gender discrimination law suits(as if police department management would EVER favor anyone besides White men) while they pay hundreds of thousands to fight well-documented cases involving racial discrimination for years and years.
I have a friend in LE, who’s a man of color, who was promoted after YEARS of being passed over. His promotion was fought by nine white male sergeants, who were younger, less qualified and he’d trained most of them. Still, they got promoted retroactively(after an earlier unsuccessful attempt to promote them behind the chief’s back) back to the date of my friend’s promotion and paid off. What a slap that is, to someone who’s done a good job and worked hard for over 25 years! And I think it still hurts him deeply. What rubbish. They based their allegation on a comment the chief made about having to promote a Black man, yet my friend was not Black. He was American Indian, though culturally, he identified himself as also with the African-American community because of his upbringing. Two other Black men were up for the same promotion, including one who had been passed over almost as many times, so then the White sergeants argued that he “looked” Black.
I’m not in a good place this morning because of stuff that’s been going on locally, but I do think that there is a lot of really good discussion on this thread, and a lot of patience being shown by several of the posters as well.
Poor whites still have racial privilage, and racism transcends class lines. It follows people of color up the class ladder.
A rich Black man can still be lynched a lot quicker than a poor White man. Historically, many were lynched because they had business enterprises that competed with White-owned businesses. He can be stopped by police, for being in the “wrong” neighborhood. He can be shot by police, for trying to pull out his wallet to produce identity to police officers, or for pulling out a replica gun when he sees someone in the backyard dressed up like a cop(it was a Halloween party, after all), or for pulling out a cellphone in a car(as happened to a young Black woman in Chicago, I think).
I can’t think for the life of me, ANY situation where a White man, rich or poor, would be shot 41 times for standing in his doorway, or be shot in the head 12 times simply for being in a car suffering from a medical seizure.
41, times, where the hell does that come from? Racism.
Not to eliminate the issue of class, and how it impacts members of all races, abeit differently, but because there are poor Whites doesn’t mean they are experiencing racism at the hands of Black men or women who have more money. Racism is backed by power, and Whites have that power and keep it exclusively.
So no matter how much wealth a Black man or woman has, they will never transcend racism in our society, as is. It will always put them “in their place” especially if their class status makes Whites around them feel insecure or envious.
I am a firm believer in Affirmative Action to treat effect equality in that treating people equally does not always equate with treating them the same. The problems many marginalized folks deal with are economically founded. It is a strange coincidence that the economic boundaries frequently follow race and gender lines. Until we can provide equal access to quality education, healthcare, and representation, there needs to be allowances made to help others who do not get the benefits of folks more equal then they are.
Well put Rock, very well put. I don’t agree with everything you say, nor everything above, but this I just had to voice my congrats and agreement with.
Lee: “By your definition, then yes, Clarence Thomas is a race traitor. But then, by your definition, *anyone* in the black community who takes actions that are detrimental to the community is a race traitor; the *only* members of the black community who are actually called race traitors are the ones who take positions similar to those of the white establishment, which is why I think it’s racist to use the term.”
You bring up a good point. Technically I should label anyone who took actions that were detrimental to the black community as a race traitor. But I don’t. I think (for me personally) the difference is who the betrayal benefits and the impact of the betrayal. I believe Thomas is strengthening white oppression over black people. The history of race relations in this country makes this a deep & painful betrayal worthy of assigning the label traitor. To label someone as a traitor is not something I do lightly. However, I think it’s appropriate considering Thomas’s actions. Black people do act against the overall black communities interests-I’ve witnessed it. But none of these people are Supreme Court justices and they don’t serve as a visible representative of black Americans. As a visible representative, Thomas gives off the impression that black people should support the white establishment, and if they don’t they’re clearly “blinded by race”. And that pisses people off. You know, as I write about this, I’m getting pissed. I don’t like the fact that people like Thomas make it seem that black people who want to force white people to see the impact of racism are irrational or too emotional. I detest the fact that the existence of overly accommodating black public figures like Thomas prevents uncomfortable but important racial discourse from taking place. I- hmm, I better stop now. I feel a rant coming on……..
quick side comment- is comment #36 showing up on anyone else’s computer?
Yes, I see comment #36 now.
never mind, its showing now.
Radfem has already said much of what I would want to say here, but I want to speak to the red-herring idea that poor whites have no power to be racist.
There are a number of organizations historically and in the present who recruit poor whites to perform violent acts against Blacks (also against other people of color, Jews, gays, lesbians, transgendered people, and immigrants).
The initials of one such organization are KKK.
In the historical cases, almost all of the white perpetrators have escaped prosecution. Why? Because there were rich and powerful whites who approved of the violence, helped foster it and protected the hands-on perpetrators from justice. This is but one of example of how institutionalized racism promotes and sustains racist acts by people who themselves are not terribly powerful. It is also an example of how rich and powerful racists use racist ideology to drive poor whites to fight against their own economic interests, stay poor, and keep race hatred and class anger festering together among people who are themselves harmed by institutional inequalities.
Not so different from the past were the shootings at the Lockheed Martin Plant in 2003, in Meridian, MS, a famous home to Klan activity:
The most irrational, hate-filled acts of racial violence and the broadest levels of institutionalizeed racism are all different layers of skin on the same, rotten onion.
j-ha:
OK, so the fact that the majority of the historical figures, current politicians happen to be the same race as about 70% of the population is somehow evidence of this racist “system”? If I grew up in China as a white person, how many white people do you think I would learn about in a Chinese history class? Or the great white leaders of China?
Now could more of an effort be made to incorporate more minorities in an American history class? Sure, thats fine with me. But, surely you are not suggesting the janitor is racist because he attended history classes? In fact you still haven’t answered the central question of what the janitor could do directly to oppress black people, beyond the fact that he was born white and therefore a part of this supposed “system”.
j-ha:
I used Jesse Jackson vs. a janitor because you, Sydney, and others seem to think racism can only exist if one person has “power” over another. Who do you think is more powerful Jesse Jackson or his white janitor? Who do you think the vast majority of Americans would think is more powerful? Assuming, that is, that “power” has anything to do with the real world definition with action -> consequences and not another conjured nebulous concept designed to make sure that all blacks are the rightful victims. And again, if you think the janitor somehow has “power” over Jesse Jackson I want to know how he would exorcize that power.
hmm, didn’t think I’d coded boldface there. Emphasis was not added intentionally.
Sydney, thanks for that clarification. Sorry if I wound up your rant-meter by asking for it. ;) This whole discussion has been very valuable to me, at least in part because talking about race relations in a mixed group like this one can be very volatile.
Larry, it’s like you’re TRYING not to understand what J-Ha is saying. Frankly, I don’t have the energy or the patience to engage.
Please go back and read Sarah’s comment( #49). I think she does a great job of answering many of your questions regarding how racism involves the application of systematic power over another person or group of people.
I’m done trying to explain things to you.
70%??? Um, you might want to try a bit higher than that.
Read Radfem’s last post if you want some ways that racism still works against Jesse Jackson.
Argh, that’s why I’ve stated several times that to observe racism on an individual level is to blind yourself to it. Ok, Jesse Jackson, due to his economic and social advantage might be seen as “higher up” than anonymous white janitors. Who cares? Is Jesse Jackson a typical black man wrt his wealth and power? If a white man had his intelligence, drive and political saavy (not making any judgements on any of these btw) would he have gone farther politically than Jackson did? Factors other than race play a part in how people’s lives turn out. Maybe the janitor was born into poverty and received a terrible education. Maybe if he wanted to become a politician or ceo he would have to overcome those hurdles. Fine. But he will never have to fight racism. never. No white person in America has to fight for a fair shake because of their skin color. If that isn’t a system of racism then I don’t know what is.
You want this to be about individual behavior for the same reason so many men want sexism to be about a few mean guys; it lets you off the hook for your apathy. It makes doing nothing the same as not being racist. “Hey I’m not a member of the KKK.” “Hey, Usher makes a better living than I do so I’ll ignore the scores of blacks living below the poverty line in my city because that’s got nothing to do with me.” It’s not about white guilt or poor little white babies being “born racist.” it’s about inheriting a centuries old system of racism and facing up to the advantages it gives us white people.
Now that comment 36 has finally shown up:
Niels, giving me a decision to read in which Thomas doesn’t say “racism is great!” does not mean that he isn’t working against the black community’s interest.
This comment is not very accurate. 1) Thomas never writes anything remotely like “racism is great.” Why are you trying to imply that he normally writes that kind of stuff? 2) I provided 4 decisions, not just one. 3) You still don’t address even a single one of those decisions, in ALL of which Thomas’s concern for the black community is deep and thoughtful. So you disagree with him on some issues; why is that any reason to be so vicious in attacking someone who cares as much about the black community as you do?
Lee, its no problem. I don’t mind getting my rant meter going- I just want this to be a constructive dialogue and if I start ranting it won’t stay constructive for long!
What I find interesting is how this conversation has evolved into a defense of the idea that racism is institutionalized and involves a system of power over others, and a discussion about “well what about the poor whites”. Neither of these things have any actual bearing to the initial topic, which was the use of the term race traitor. Instead, these red herrings distract from dissenters presenting real arguments as to why they are personably uncomfortable with black people using the term race traitor. Lee, I believe you are the ONLY person who has truly stayed on topic. Oh and Rock.
Oh well, I don’t know why I expect anything else.
I’m personally uncomfortable with black people saying “race traitor” to describe relatively trivial disagreements with mainstream political opponents. Why? Because it’s easy enough just to say, “I respectfully disagree with Clarence Thomas’s opinions on how best to help the black community.” And then leave it at that. How hard would that be to do?
Oh. My. God.
Niels: “This comment is not very accurate. 1) Thomas never writes anything remotely like “racism is great.” Why are you trying to imply that he normally writes that kind of stuff?”
Niels- It’s called pithiness! I made a pithy comment! Remind me not to ever do that again with you. I’m not implying anything of the sort. What I meant was that I do not expect Thomas to write an opinion that supports blatant racism. So showing me opinions where he doesn’t reveal motivations that are outwardly hostile to the black community is not surprising to me.
As for the rest of your comment:
Niels: “2) I provided 4 decisions, not just one. 3) You still don’t address even a single one of those decisions, in ALL of which Thomas’s concern for the black community is deep and thoughtful. So you disagree with him on some issues; why is that any reason to be so vicious in attacking someone who cares as much about the black community as you do?”
I provided you one decision that I felt helped make my point. In the interest of not clogging up space, I linked to a website that gives you plenty of other decisions that are controversial and show that Thomas may not have the black community’s best interest in mind. Do me a favor- click on them and read them. For example, don’t you think that excessive jail sentences might have a disproportionate effect on the black community? There is a link to the Ewing case that explains how Thomas’s decision once again helped put the screws to us. As for not addressing the decisions that you posted, I have already said that Thomas is NOT going to frame his decisions as being bad for the black community. Yes, he shows concern, but if he truly thinks that his rulings are going to help the black community, than he needs to have his head examined. Because Thomas is a Supreme Court justice and intelligent man, I personally believe he has put his own interests above that of the black community, no matter what he states in his decisions. I can go on and on about how concerned I am about the disabled, but if I pass a law that result in higher insurance premiums or the denial of benefits for the disabled do you really think I’m looking out for the best interest of the disabled?
Give me a break.
Niels: “I’m personally uncomfortable with black people saying “race traitor” to describe relatively trivial disagreements with mainstream political opponents. Why? Because it’s easy enough just to say, “I respectfully disagree with Clarence Thomas’s opinions on how best to help the black community.” And then leave it at that. How hard would that be to do?”
And at last we get to the heart of the problem-the phrase “relatively trivial disagreements”. They may be trivial to you, but they’re not trivial to most black people. Deciding to stand against affirmative action, deciding to not follow years of judicial precedent and instead endorse longer jail sentences, deciding to support decisions that undermine civil rights- this is all a big fucking deal. And the fact that you don’t think so is privilege. And its possibly one of the reasons why Amp said:
“It’s not our place, as whites against racism, to tell Blacks what language they should or shouldn’t use; whether or not I like the term “race traitor,” in this context, is irrelevant.”
Don’t tell black people what language you feel they can or cannot use if you don’t fully understand the emotions and history that is involved when dealing with the actions of someone like Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell. If you’re uncomfortable with it, fine. But don’t presume that gives you a right to argue against the language and then have your opinions respected.
j-ha:
Here is the disconnect. I thought I explained this clearly in #44 talking about systems, but I will give it another shot. You claim that racism is a “system.” Lets define the structure of your “system”? Since buildings can’t be racist your “system” must consist of people correct? (if everyone died your system would cease to exist) Or more precisely, white people. Within your “system” white people must “do something” in order for the system produce racism, yes? So then, even if your system existed as you know it, it is essentially individual people contributing with individual ACTIONS to the racist system, correct?
I am responsible for my own actions because I can control my own actions. I am not responsible for what you do, what my father did, or my great great grandfather. Saying it’s the system is not much more helpful than saying the Martians are causing racism. Its some vague thing that you can’t really point to and say “you are responsible!” No one controls the system so there isn’t any responsibility.
No, it wasn’t the link – you can include up to three links in a single comment without getting put into the “needs approval from a moderator” pile. (Comments with four links or more are automatically put into the “needs approval” pile).
I have no idea what put your post into moderation, specifically.
The computer has this big list of words that automatically get a comment put into the “needs approval” pile; most of the words are somehow related to poker, to porn, to loans, or to prescription medicine. If your post happened to use one of those words, then it got put into “needs approval” list. Also if you happened to be posting from an ip address other than your usual ip address.
(For a while, every time someone wrote a comment using the word “socialist” it was automatically put into moderation, because the word “cialist” is on the list!)
Anyhow, once a comment is in moderation, it stays there until me or one of the other moderators approves it. And if we happen to be busy or asleep, that can unfortunately take a while . Sorry about that – but it really IS necessary. There are dozens and dozens of spam posts caught by the system every hour, which “Alas” readers never see; the discussions we have here would be unworkable without moderating them away.
(Sorry about the digression!)
And at last we get to the heart of the problem-the phrase “relatively trivial disagreements”. They may be trivial to you, but they’re not trivial to most black people.
What I meant was that anything is trivial — in this debate — short of the hypothetical example of the African who sold his fellow Africans into slavery. That guy was a race traitor. But someone who merely thinks that a state government shouldn’t be automatically giving college applicants an extra 200 points on the SAT just because they’re black? That’s nowhere in the same league.
Look at the whole picture.
The liberals on the Supreme Court are the ones who say, in effect:
And Clarence Thomas is saying:
When you look at the whole picture, why aren’t you equally mad at liberals?
Oh no problem Amp! I was just confused for a while becasue i kept refrencing my post which no one else but me could see!
Now I get to figure out what word put my post into moderation. hmm.. this could be fun….
Your analysis too simplistic. The system consists not only of people, but also of how those people are organized.
For instance, you could say that the game “duck duck goose” was a system, whose purpose is amusing small children. However, to say that the “DDG System” consists only of small children would be inaccurate. The children are part of the DDG System, but they’re not the whole of it; another part of the system is the rules of the game.
That’s part of it, but it’s not the whole.
I think you’re conflating two different concepts, “responsibility” and “fault.”
If I get a job because, without my knowlege, my employer had a policy of hiring white people over equally qualified blacks, that’s not my fault. But if I find out about it, it’s my responsibility to do something, even if the “something” I do is only quitting and looking for another job.
It’s not my fault that I’ve been advantaged by my skin color. But I have been given some unfair advantages by my skin color, and I think that makes it my responsibility to try and support changes to make our society less racist.
This is irrelevant; you’re talking about how easy racism is to fight. You’re right, racism might be easier to fight if it were only a matter of individual action, so we point to the bad people and say “you are responsible!” However, in the real world, that’s not how racism works, and it would be foolish and counterproductive to pretend that is how it works.
(By the way, no one has been saying it’s “the system.” People have been saying racism is “a system.” Not the same thing at all.)
Niels…..
I would love to continue this discussion but your last comment has caused me to hit my head repeatedly against my desk. In the interest of not giving myself brain trauma, i’m going to step away from my computer for a while. I’m hoping that during the intervening time common sense and clear logic will be restored to this thread.
ta- ta.
“In effect” meaning “they never actually said this, or anything like this.”
Niels, you’re such a hypocrite! You spend this entire thread arguing that people shouldn’t attribute anti-black sentiments to Thomas that he doesn’t actually have. But clearly, you think that only conservatives deserve that kind of consideration; when it comes time to make up lies about what liberals have said, you don’t hesitate for even a moment before doing it.
By the way, I love the way that you leap upon every liberal who makes a generalization about Black opinion, accusing them of implying that all Blacks think the same thing. But then you go and make a blanket statement about what “all the black parents” want. Again, such a hypocrite.
So does your not being actively racist make white priviledge go away? What counts as action anyway. Do you have to burn a cross, tell a racist joke, or attend a skinhead rally to be racist?
See you keep talking about how I need to create a nice, organized chart in order to prove that racism exists. You keep talking about how buildings can’t be racist. You never address white priviledge. You make statements about how only 70% of our political leaders have been white and then never mention it again even when you’re challenged on them. I’ve said time and time again that prviledge is more complicated than a is higher than b which is lower than c and somehow that means that it doesn’t exist?
So you don’t “do” anything racist. Ok. Chances are pretty good you get paid more than black people who have your same job. But that’s not racist b/c you didn’t decide on those salaries? If you and a black man are convicted of the same crime, chances are very good that he’ll get a harsher sentence. But you’re not the judge so it’s not racist on your part? Some black men make more money and have more influence than you so therefore racism only operates on the individual level – you can just ignore the higher percentage of poor blacks and hispanics in this country.
Priviledge doesn’t require that you do anything other than be born into a priviledged group. That’s all.
Also what amp said
Ampersand:
Actually I was quite correct, the DDG system is comprised of small children. The actions the children perform distinguish DDG from the TAG system which is the point about individuals doing individual things contributing to the system.
Niels, you’re such a hypocrite! You spend this entire thread arguing that people shouldn’t attribute anti-black sentiments to Thomas that he doesn’t actually have. But clearly, you think that only conservatives deserve that kind of consideration; when it comes time to make up lies about what liberals have said, you don’t hestitate for even a moment before doing it.
Ampersand — I knew that as soon as I posted the above, someone would respond like this.
So let’s be clear: For post after post after post, Sydney (and Shannon) have been saying, “It doesn’t matter what Clarence Thomas says, or what’s in his heart. The only thing that counts is how he votes, and because he voted against ‘black people’ in a few cases, he’s a traitor,” etc.
What I’m saying is this: If you’re going to analyze Clarence Thomas (or anyone else) that way, then if you want to be honest, you have to analyze liberals that way too. So let’s look at the school choice cases in that light. By Sydney’s logic, it doesn’t matter how much white liberals like black people. It doesn’t matter what their motives are. The only thing that should count — according to her — is the fact that liberal Supreme Court Justices voted against the inner-city blacks from Cleveland who (in point of fact) were forced to defend themselves against a lawsuit (filed by liberals) just because they were sending their kids to a good school.
That’s NOT how I MYSELF view the world. In my world, liberal judges and conservative judges alike might have perfectly good reasons to vote a particular way — they feel that the previous caselaw dictates a particular conclusion, or their analysis of constitutional history points in one way, etc., etc. In my world, it is simplistic to reduce every single Supreme Court vote to “is it good for blacks.”
But for someone like Sydney — who doesn’t care about motives or language — the only thing that matters is the final outcome. So she should apply that same logic to liberal judges as well as to conservative ones.
Does that make sense?
No Niels, but it does prove that you’re not a good listener.
Sorry to go off topic earlier, btw.
Thomas was wrong, wrong, wrong, on his dissenting opinion(the sole dissenter) in Johnson vs the state of California issued last May in regards to the decision to strike down a case involving race-based jury selection tactics used by the prosecutor(well, used by nearly every California prosecutor actually). But then that’s a pattern with him, not exactly a shock.
I thought Sydney’s posts on Thomas were pretty clear. Maybe Niels, you can go back and reread them?
If that was your point – that your analysis of liberal opinion in your previous post was deliberately stupid, and that it is the same as the analysis others have offered of Thomas – then you should have said so. I have very little regard for posters who come over here and post flame-bait but later claim they were just playing clever head games. (It’s hard not to suspect that they’re actually trying to find a clever way of backing away from an indefensible post.)
In any case, your analysis of what “liberal” judges said (actually, there are no liberals on the SCOTUS, in my opinion; there are only extreme right-wingers and moderates) wasn’t without regard for what was in their heart; the dialog you made up and attributed “in effect” to them was clearly elitist and obnoxious towards blacks in tone. You were attributing extreme callousness to them, not being neutral towards what their attitudes might be.
The rest of the argument, I’m going to bow out of for now, because I have to be getting a drawing assignment done today.
You were attributing extreme callousness to them, not being neutral towards what their attitudes might be.
Yes, exactly. That’s the point. This is exactly the way that Sydney ought to view them IF she wants to be consistent in attributing the worst possible motives to a judge based on the way that he or she voted.
I have to be getting a drawing assignment done today.
You draw?
Niels,
“What I meant was that anything is trivial … in this debate … short of the hypothetical example of the African who sold his fellow Africans into slavery. That guy was a race traitor. But someone who merely thinks that a state government shouldn’t be automatically giving college applicants an extra 200 points on the SAT just because they’re black? That’s nowhere in the same league.”
Couldn’t be farther from the truth on both counts. The majority of slave trading of people of color today is by dark skinned people of dark skinned people. (From what I have read, it is Arab on African.) Even if it were African on African, or White on White, to label it “Race Traitor” is wrong. It implies that one should have a special regard for people like themselves over others. That is just so wrong, it is the basis of so much hatred and repression that occurs simply by identifying for or against a group based on race. To not be a Race Traitor then suggests that simply because of appearance special treatment needs to be given over those that are not the same.
Secondly as far as admission points go, to create a better learning environment or to take into account flaws in testing or past education, points can and should be awarded for many issues, such as: primary language acquisition, country of origin, age, gender, personal history, etc. It has been shown repeatedly that tests are biased for culture. Mainstream American students would perform at least 200 points below one developed for Native Americans or urban African Americans, or rural African Americans. What are you afraid of giving up by showing grace in an imperfect system? Maybe to some, the admissions folks are “Race Traitors” when they apply remedies that level the field so all people can join in? Is a world of well-educated people having an equal crack at success that threatening? Nothing when it comes to shutting out another person from being accountable for their life is trivial. Blessings.
“41, times, where the hell does that come from? Racism. ”
This statement, and indeed the incident you’re referring to, really struck me as supporting an idea I’ve had for a long time. This is indeed racism, but it’s more than that, in my opinion. It’s fear. Why would anyone shoot someone 41 times who’s not attacking them (ie it’s not panic and self defense)? The only reasons I can think of are anger and fear. I’m not an American, so maybe that’s why I have a hard time understanding where the fear and anger come from, but I have lived in the South and I’ve seen a lot of American white people express hatred towards black people that, when you really pay attention to their tone and body language, seems to be based on fear. Why the fear? What are they so damn afraid of? Personally my theory is that on some level they KNOW that their ancestors committed a horrible injustice, and are afraid that at some point they will themselves be held accountable. Maybe they’re afraid that the system they perpetrated will be turned on them at some point in the future. I see the same thing from misogynistic men, the fear that at some point women will get angry enough to do to men the same kind of bad things that have been done to us. In both cases I think the fearful people are projecting and there’s very little likelihood that they will ever be oppressed in the way that they have oppressed others, but I think the fear is still there. Maybe I’m crazy, but that’s what it’s always felt like to me. Thoughts?
I think this may be the point at which someone calls me a “radical feminist” (actually it’s more like socialist feminist, but the people who think “radical feminist” is an insult probably don’t know the difference), or a communist, or something of the sort. Or maybe I’m just spending too much time on Hugo’s board.
“You want this to be about individual behavior for the same reason so many men want sexism to be about a few mean guys; it lets you off the hook for your apathy. It makes doing nothing the same as not being racist. “Hey I’m not a member of the KKK.” “Hey, Usher makes a better living than I do so I’ll ignore the scores of blacks living below the poverty line in my city because that’s got nothing to do with me.” It’s not about white guilt or poor little white babies being “born racist.” it’s about inheriting a centuries old system of racism and facing up to the advantages it gives us white people. ”
Nail, hammer, bang. Thank you. I’m thinking of a Chris Rock joke. He concluded a rant with the words “Not one of you white guys would trade places with me, and I’m rich!”. And, sadly, he was probably right.
Note – the Chris Rock quote is reconstructed from memory, so may not be exactly verbatim, but I think I got the gist of it.
Sarah in Chicago,
Even a broke clock is right twice a day! Thanks.
BritGirlSF,
It’s not like you need encouragement, but… Go Girl!
Blessings.
I just want to chime in, as a bit of a jump in and disappear sort, that I have learned a lot from the comments of people here like Shannon and Sydney–thanks for clarifying my thinking on this. I do find it telling that conservatives who wish to pretend they are suddenly anti-racist accused liberals of using the term “race traitor”. I’ve never heard this uttered by anyone seriously who was not a white supremacist.
I had a moment of self-doubt about criticizing racial minorities that I see as openly acting on behalf of racist institutions, which is where I’m in a pickle. Clearly, that’s what conservatives are hoping that people like me will do–be scared to criticized someone like Michelle Malkin for fear of being called racist. But I think I’m not. I don’t think her race has much to do with anything regarding her abilities or her person. I do think that it’s something she uses and allows others to use to shield her from criticism.
Suddenly, I feel like one of those men earnestly asking for help on being useful to the feminist cause. Does it help or hurt for a white person to jump into the fray and declare that standing by oppressive racist institutions makes you a racist regardless of your race? My gut instinct is to say that as long as you are clear-eyed and criticize racist institutions and those who support them, it’s pretty unproblematic, but I may be wrong.
Actually, fuck my navel-gazing. I’m amused by how the whining about racism parallels whining about sexism. One fucking note, played repeatedly–“But I wanna, but it’s not my fault!”
Pingback: The Debate Link
Amanda:
I do find it telling that conservatives who wish to pretend they are suddenly anti-racist accused liberals of using the term “race traitor”.
I’m not pretending to be anti-racist. Indeed, you don’t know me from Adam. Who the hell are you to say that I’m pretending here? (Or that I’m doing so “suddenly”?)
I’ve never heard this uttered by anyone seriously who was not a white supremacist.
Well, you’ve READ it. Several times, if you are able to follow links. Or even if you read this very comment thread, where Sydney used that term several times (comments 15, 31, and 57).
What Amanda said.
Well, after taking some time away, I feel remarkably calm. Just in time to read some very asinine and very insightful comments.
Niels, I’ve read all your comments since I last posted and I’m just disappointed. Disappointed that you would completely twist what I’ve said and try to portray me as intolerant, overly simple-minded, and callous. You’ve even managed to link me to white supremacy. Nice. Don’t ask me how you’ve done these things because I’m not going to bother responding. I just wanted to say that I’m sorry that we were unable to have a constructive dialogue, but in a strange way I’m glad you’ve decided to be as stubborn and bone-headed as you’ve been. Because your posts have shown other people reading this thread the kind of ignorance black people have to deal with. So in a weird way, I guess I’m saying thanks for being a hypocrite- it was a good learning tool.
Now onto Amanda’s question. I don’t think that you’re racist by saying, “standing by oppressive racist institutions makes you a racist regardless of your race”. That’s a factually true statement. The racism occurs when you don’t shut up and actually listen to minorities, but instead try to talk over them or invalidate their opinions about racist institutions rather than process what they’re trying to say. Which is something that has been done by certain posters on this thread.
By the way, I agree that conservatives do appear to think that if you criticize a minority that all of a sudden they can call you racist. Because clearly you’re criticizing the minority just because (s)he is a minority. (that was sarcasm) I believe that frequently it is because they view that minority primarily by their race, and love being able to pull the supposed “moral high ground” out from under liberals. Oh and it has also has been my experience that I find myself facing similar resistance when discussing race as I do when discussing sex. The same types of tactics are used: avoidance of discussing the actual point, maligning of my character, insinuating that it’s really the oppressed party’s fault and the requisite complaints of unfairness that occur when everyone points out the poster in question is wrong. The best is when you try to talk about the patriarchy’s role in enforcing racism and sexism on minority women. The heads start to roll then!
Also for the record, I think referencing Malkin’s tits rather than saying she is a woman was crude and inappropriate. Yet I do think it is a valid question to wonder if she is not being used as a symbol by the Republican Party so they appear inclusive. And before someone says this, I don’t think this is an unfair question to ask considering that a number of republican policies tend to primarily benefit white males and help maintain the patriarchy and not minorities. But that’s just my two cents.
I want to respond to some of the other great comments but it’s almost 2 am here and I think I’m starting to ramble. G’night!
Niels, I’ve read all your comments since I last posted and I’m just disappointed. Disappointed that you would completely twist what I’ve said and try to portray me as intolerant, overly simple-minded, and callous. You’ve even managed to link me to white supremacy.
That’s not true. Amanda said that she, even now, had never heard the term “race traitor” from anyone who wasn’t a white supremacist. I pointed out that you — Sydney — specifically used and defended that term no fewer than three times in this very comment thread. This refutes Amanda’s point, because you are obviously not, and could not be, a white supremacist, and yet you use the term “race traitor.”
Because your posts have shown other people reading this thread the kind of ignorance black people have to deal with.
Ignorance? In my main dispute with you (i.e., over Clarence Thomas’s opinions), you are the one who seems to be ignorant of the fact that Thomas very regularly takes a position that is sympathetic with his old Black Power beliefs. (Again, see above for Thomas’s opinions in various cases involving historically black colleges, eminent domain, and school choice.) As for Thomas’s other opinions (on the Commerce Clause, for example), I’m not ignorant, I just draw a different conclusion than you. From all of Thomas’s opinions, I conclude that (1) he is incredibly sympathetic to the problems of the black community, but at the same time (2) he does his best to call it as he sees it. In other words, he does the most that he can, within his own constitutional philosophy, but if in looking at the actual Constitution and its history he is forced to come to a particular conclusion, then that’s how he votes. I respect that kind of intellectual integrity.
And I think that it is embarrassing to measure the worth of a Supreme Court Justice by asking: “Did he vote for black people every single time?” No one ever asks that sort of question about Breyer or Ginsburg: “Did they vote for the Jews every time? If not, they are race traitors.” No, everyone pays them the minimal respect of assuming that they have their own minds, and that they aren’t deciding every vote based on some sort of racial or ethnic agenda.
That first paragraph was a quote from Sydney.
By the way, Sydney, your real complaint is with Amanda. You use the term “race traitor” regularly here, and after all of that, Amanda is the one who said that people who use the term “race traitor” are white supremacists. Amanda is therefore the one who linked you to them.
Neil, people think you are only pretending to be anti racist, because you don’t seem to know anything about racism. You have to learn something about what you are supposedly against. There is no sign on the library saying “No whites allowed”. And Amanda, don’t be afraid to speak up. Conservatives might call you racist, but heck, I’ve been called racist for having an interest in black lit.