In The boy who cried ‘racism!’, I broached the subject that I think that those who are complaining that the modern anti-Obama rallies and other conservative actions in the news are racist in nature are making bogus claims. But if not racism, what ARE the motives of these modern conservative protesters? Here’s my quick list of what I think are the genuine motives involved.
- Birthers – grasping for any opportunity to remove a LIBERAL president, they are merely trying to invalidate his eligibility for president. In addition, out of understandable anti-Islamic sentiment in the wake of 9/11, they allude to the fact that his value system may not be American, based on his Muslim schooling and country/culture of origin. I don’t agree with them, but at the most, they are appealing to xenophobia, but not quite racism. But their actual motives are about his liberalism, not his race.
- Hussein – The attack on Obama’s middle name has nothing to do with race, but with post 9/11 anti-Islamic sentiment, and a fear that Obama is going to appease tyrants, many of which are Islamic crazy people like Iran’s president. Now, some may think that anti-Islamic sentiment itself is racist, but of course, Islam is not a race but an ideology. Regardless of our feelings on the morality of being anti-Islamic, being so is not racist. Again, I think that the abuse of Obama’s middle name and comparing him to another dictator named Hussein is valid biting humor when used as humor in critiquing his soft policies with regard to Islam, but it is not a real argument.
Obama as Hitler – Of course, this is merely a reference to the ‘totalitarian’ feel of Obama’s ‘socialist’ economic approach. Now, if Obama were Jewish, perhaps race would be an issue. Interestingly, most, perhaps ALL of these posters may have been wielded, not by conservatives, but by the leftist communists that support Lyndon Larouche, who’s PAC has published such articles as Obama Has Revived Hitler’s Genocide Program.
- Anti-immigration – The real motive behind the anti-illegal-aliens people is not racial, it’s based on their fear of gaps in national security (in the wake of 9/11) and the drain on our failing economy that uncontrolled immigration has. Most all of the neocons I know readily and proudly admit that our nation was built by immigrants, and backpedal from accustations that they are anti-immigrant. Additionally, they are concerned with the rule of law, which keeps
our society safe and orderly, and they see illegal immigration as a
breach in the rule of law, leading to social and economic chaos. - English only – While it may in some senses be based on fears, it’s more based on frustration with what is perceived as a lack of respect for America by not valuing our culture enough to prioritize it over one’s own culture and loyalty to their home country. When they go into the local gas station or restaurant, and can’t understand or be understood by the help, that is frustrating, and perhaps even disconcerting. Previous immigrants had the courtesy and respect for America to learn English. So to some extent, they object out of fear, but moreso out of a love for and respect for the ideals of America – people who became and become citizens swear an oath to deny loyalties to other countries, and be loyal to Lady Liberty and the Country she stands for. Lastly, it is a thing of principle – we don’t want a balkanized US like we see in parts of Europe, and even in Canada, where Quebec is always fomenting secession.
- Confederate Flag – While it is understandable that people might see this flag as racist, most modern southerners associate the flag not with support for racism, but as representative of the South’s unique and rich culture, of the spirit that rebels against government intrusion into State and personal rights (hence the term “Rebel Flag”), and to some extent, freedom of speech.As stated nicely on wikipedia in the Confederate flag:
Supporters of the flag view it as a symbol of heritage and the freedom of the distinct cultural tradition of the South from the oppression of Northern government. Also, in light of some schools and universities banning it as a racist symbol in their “speech codes”, it could also be seen as a symbol of freedom of speech.[18]
White southerners often see the flag as merely a symbol of southern culture, a “country music flag” without any political or racial connotation. An example of this would be the Bocephus Rebel Flag often sold at concerts performed by country music star Hank Williams, Jr or Kevin Fowler, heavy metal band Pantera, and southern rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd. For some, the flag represents only a past era of southern sovereignty. Some historical societies such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy also use the flag as part of their symbols. Also some rockabilly fans hold the Confederate flag as their emblem.
So to summarize, the actual motives of the anti-Obama, or anti-tax, or anti-Obamacare, or anti-government protesters are not racism, but actually:
- A dislike for Obama’s radical liberalism
- A dislike of big government
- Concerns for national security
- Concerns for the economy
- Concerns for the rule of law
- Respect for American ideals
- Concerns for free speech
- Anti-Islamic sentiment
Racism is alive on the fringes of the conservative movement, I suppose. But it thrives even more in the minds of liberals who see the demon of racism behind every bush, and in the minds of minorities who maintain an unforgiving, angry victim mentality due to societal prejudices that lie more in the past than the present. I am all for condemning overt racism where it does exist, but quite frankly, the more that liberals push the race card erroneously, the more they risk invigorating racism in America rather than helping transcend it.
Perhaps I am not a part of the "masses" but I LOVE that we have a black president, finally. But I despise most of his political views and therefore am not real happy about his decisions.
And I am proud to live in a country where if I so chose, I can express my disgust with my leader publicly and loudly and even, may I say, obnoxiously.
And people can accuse me of racism if they want to, but if they bring it to court, I have faith that it will not hold up, unless I have legally committed the crime of hurting someone.
:)
Hi Daniel:
I would like to comment here on some of the points you make. In no particular order…
Confederate Flag – While it is understandable that people might see this flag as racist, most modern southerners associate the flag not with support for racism, but as representative of the South’s unique and rich culture, of the spirit that rebels against government intrusion into State and personal rights (hence the term “Rebel Flag”), and to some extent, freedom of speech.
The particular “government intrusion” that the South was concerned about in the Civil War was the Federal government (they feared) trying to take away their “right” to own human beings as property. It’s akin the gang banger who rebels against the government “intrusion” on his right to do drive by shootings. The government “intrusion” the South was concerned about in the 50s and 60s was the Feds trying to take away their “rights” to deny African-Americans the protection of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the US Constitution. Neither of those expressions of their unique culture are worthy of anything more than abject scorn. You can’t take race out of the mix. It seems to me that too many people want to define “racism” so narrowly that not even David Duke could be called a racist. It seems to me that you cannot remove the racial character from pride in the Confederate stand the South took.
Hussein – The attack on Obama’s middle name has nothing to do with race, but with post 9/11 anti-Islamic sentiment, and a fear that Obama is going to appease tyrants, many of which are Islamic crazy people like Iran’s president. Now, some may think that anti-Islamic sentiment itself is racist, but of course, Islam is not a race but an ideology. Regardless of our feelings on the morality of being anti-Islamic, being so is not racist. Again, I think that the abuse of Obama’s middle name and comparing him to another dicator named Hussein is valid biting humor when used as humor in critiquing his soft policies with regard to Islam, but it is not a real argument.
I’m not sure how you get that Obama’s stance toward Islam is any softer than Bush’s was. Bush explicitly separated radical Islam from mainstream Islam all during his Presidency. He quit calling the war on terror a “crusade” when it was pointed out how the Muslim world hears that word.
Anti-immigration – The real motive behind the anti-illegal-aliens people is not racial, it’s based on their fear of gaps in national security (in the wake of 9/11) and the drain on our failing economy that uncontrolled immigration has. Most all of the neocons I know readily and proudly admit that our nation was built by immigrants, and backpedal from accustations that they are anti-immigrant. Additionally, they are concerned with the rule of law, which keeps our society safe and orderly, and they see illegal immigration as a breach in the rule of law, leading to social and economic chaos.
I agree that Islam is not a race but rather a religion. But I seriously doubt that very many people are anti-Muslim because of theology. I would claim that most people who are bothered by Islam are thinking in cultural stereotypes, slightly brown skinned people who talk funny and blow themselves up to kill innocent civilians. Skin color and nationality are tied up in the thing. Since race is not really a biological notion but rather a sociological one, I’d say that the term “racism” is a legitimate adjective to describe American anti-Muslim bigotry. But we needn’t quibble; xenophobia is good enough.
English only – While it may in some senses be based on fears, it’s more based on frustration with what is perceived as a lack of respect for America by not valuing our culture enough to prioritize it over one’s own culture and loyalty to their home country. When they go into the local gas station or restaurant, and can’t understand or be understood by the help, that is frustrating, and perhaps even disconcerting.
I think “English only” is one of the dumbest political opinions around. The more langauges we speak the better, just like the more of anything we know the better. I think it is insulting to America to say that our country is so fragile that it can’t handle a multiplicity of cultures living side by side. The problem with “Balkanization” isn’t that there are too many cultures, it’s that the the cultures cannot seem to tolerate other cultures. That’s pathetic if you ask me. We have no need to demand that a Mexican immigrant prioritize US culture over Mexican culture. We are a richer nation for having both.
Previous immigrants had the courtesy and respect for America to learn English.
I think that’s not true, or rather I think it is false to suggest that todays immigrants are less inclined to learn English than previous generations were. I think it’s the case that the 1st generation generally doesn’t learn English unless they are forced to economically, but subsequent generations learn English from the earliest ages.
So to some extent, they object out of fear, but moreso out of a love for and respect for the ideals of America – people who became and become citizens swear an oath to deny loyalties to other countries, and be loyal to Lady Liberty and the Country she stands for.
My friends who became citizens love America every bit as much as anyone else. The people who think otherwise are wrong.
Anti-immigration – The real motive behind the anti-illegal-aliens people is not racial, it’s based on their fear of gaps in national security (in the wake of 9/11)…
Not very many fall into this category, I’d say. Out here in California it’s the same people harping on illegal immigration now as before 9-11. And ths tuff that I have heard, people who ASSUME a group of Spanish speakers are “illegals” without having the slightest idea what their immigration status is. They would not suspect Brits and they’d barely even NOTICE Canadians, but brown skin and spanish? Illegals.
…and the drain on our failing economy that uncontrolled immigration has.
I don’t think it’s a drain on our economy, but the defacto laissez faire labor market does drive down wages for people who have to compete with the undocumented. Of course I don’t see how Free Marketeers can object, how they can support the government intrusion in the labor market that immigration quotas represents.
Most all of the neocons I know readily and proudly admit that our nation was built by immigrants, and backpedal from accustations that they are anti-immigrant. Additionally, they are concerned with the rule of law, which keeps our society safe and orderly, and they see illegal immigration as a breach in the rule of law, leading to social and economic chaos.
Given that the neo-cons were completely UNINTERESTED in the rule of international law, what with their endorsement of a “muscular” US foreign policy, I think this excuse is weak. But for the people who support immigrants just not illegal ones, there is a simple solution to the problem of illegal immigration: open borders. Allow everyone who wants to to come and there will BE no illegal immigration. That this solution would never be accepted by the usual suspects gives lie to their claim to be mainly concerned about respect for the law.
your friend
Keith
>> KEITH: The particular “government intrusion” that the South was concerned about in the Civil War was the Federal government (they feared) trying to take away their “right” to own human beings as property.
If mere logic applied to this situation, I would agree. I agree with you about the HISTORY of the symbol, but it’s use has changed, and it means something larger and other than that now.
What I am saying is that the original meaning has become sanitized, and it means something more generic to most Southerners now. It’s like an epithet that has become common usage. If you think that most rednecks who fly this flag are saying that they don’t like blacks, I think you are mistaken. They are just saying “don’t tell me what to do, I’m a rebel.”
Is the flag a ‘racist symbol’? Sure, I’ll go with that. But it’s not primarily that, or even secondarily in common usage today.
>> KEITH: I’m not sure how you get that Obama’s stance toward Islam is any softer than Bush’s was. Bush explicitly separated radical Islam from mainstream Islam all during his Presidency.
Come on Keith. He did not, like Obama, say that he would sit down with these totalitarian leaders, and of course, Bush pursued the war on terror to win, while Obama campaigned on taking us out of there on a timetable. While Bush did make some overtures to the Islamic community, even going so far as to suppose that ‘true’ Islam is peaceable (which I disagree with), he did not travel the world apologizing for the war. And don’t forget his attacks on Gitmo and waterboarding. Bush didn’t do that either. QED.
Obama’s stance, at least in rhetoric, was much softer, though in real governance, he’s found out that closing gitmo and getting out of the Middle East isn’t as simple as his grandiose stump speeches indicated.
>> KEITH: I would claim that most people who are bothered by Islam are thinking in cultural stereotypes, slightly brown skinned people who talk funny and blow themselves up to kill innocent civilians.
You see, you slip in this ‘slightly brown skinned people’ thing, but nobody in that camp ever mentions that at all. You just ASSUME it.
I mean, sure, a slight amount of fear of the ‘other’ is natural to us all, but beyond that baseline, I dont’ see any real racism. Nobody is anti-Mexican, or even anti-Arab – just anti ILLEGAL immigration. Conservatives understand the importance and value of first generation immigrants, which includes doing the tough, unskilled jobs.
Again, you’re just inserting your perception, and I am saying that is not reality, and you have no evidence. In this case, I would say that absence of evidence is compelling, and at least, you have no ground to stand on except your own feelings here.
>> KEITH: I think “English only” is one of the dumbest political opinions around. The more langauges we speak the better, just like the more of anything we know the better. I think it is insulting to America to say that our country is so fragile that it can’t handle a multiplicity of cultures living side by side.
I think you misunderstand. The ‘English-only’ crowd are not saying that knowing multiple languages, or being enriched by other cultures, are not valuable, but that the lingua franca of the government ought to be English, and that it ought to be a basic skill for Americans.
Your comment about fragility is not really based on history. Have you seen the foment in Europe, and other continents, based on the separation of ethnicities and languages? How about Iraq? How about Catalonia in Spain, or Quebec in Canada?
These divisions are not trivial. They might not break up the US, but I do think that to not learn English and adopt the American value system (like sticking to Sharia) is an insult to America. Now, you want to be more family oriented than the independent American culture, that’s fine. See Newt Gingrich’s Time to Put English First for a good defense of this position.
And in any case, I again assert that, even if you do not like this position, it is NOT RACIST. That’s quite honestly BS, IMO.
>> KEITH: The problem with “Balkanization” isn’t that there are too many cultures, it’s that the the cultures cannot seem to tolerate other cultures.
No, it’s that ONE culture and language must be the official default, and the values of the founding fathers, in our case, ought to be foundational.
>> KEITH: We have no need to demand that a Mexican immigrant prioritize US culture over Mexican culture. We are a richer nation for having both.
I am not quite saying that. I am just saying that having an official language is important, and that does not devalue other cultures or languages. But to not learn to ‘do in Rome as Romans do’ is arrogant and disrespectful, and to demand English as the official language is both helpful to the social fabric, AND IS NOT RACIST AS SOME CLAIM.
>> KEITH: I think that’s not true, or rather I think it is false to suggest that todays immigrants are less inclined to learn English than previous generations were.
I agree with you. My daughter is right now in a dual language academy, a local PUBLIC school that is teaching her primarily in Spanish (90/10) By 5th grade, she will be bilingual. But that’s the key – SHE IS ALSO LEARNING ENGLISH.
Immigrants do want to, in general, learn English, but those who argue for English only also argue that (1) we are enabling the slower acclamation of English, and (2) it costs more (all government forms, for instance, have to be in two languages – more paper, more translation, more legal work.)
I don’t agree with all of that, ALL I AM SAYING is that TO BE PART OF THE ENGLISH ONLY CROWD does not mean that you are RACIST.
>> KEITH: My friends who became citizens love America every bit as much as anyone else. The people who think otherwise are wrong.
Again, I believe you. But those who disagree are not being racist.
>> KEITH: Out here in California it’s the same people harping on illegal immigration now as before 9-11.
That’s why I also mentioned the economy, but many are worried about crime – you know how the drugs get in here, right? It ain’t mainly through Canada. Unfortunately, that’s a bit of guilt by association, but again, YOU ARE ASSUMING RACISM WITHOUT FACTS.
>> KEITH: They would not suspect Brits and they’d barely even NOTICE Canadians, but brown skin and spanish? Illegals.
There is again a simple non-racial explanation. The poor and disheveled may be perceived as more likely to commit crimes, and also, they are easily visually picked out. It’s really just a question of convenience. Again, you assume too much.
>> KEITH: I don’t think it’s a drain on our economy, but the defacto laissez faire labor market does drive down wages for people who have to compete with the undocumented.
That may be so, but what YOU think is not what matters here – I am telling you that’s what THEY think, and this is not a racial motive.
>> KEITH: there is a simple solution to the problem of illegal immigration: open borders. Allow everyone who wants to to come and there will BE no illegal immigration.
Well, that’s another argument altogether. But that in no way proves that the anti-amnesty folks are racists. You are just assuming the worst.
>> KEITH: That this solution would never be accepted by the usual suspects gives lie to their claim to be mainly concerned about respect for the law.
I suspect, as they do, that open borders has it’s own set of security and economic challenges. It’s not a panacea. And people are also just selfish and afraid that they will lose what they’ve got if you do that. But that’s not racist.
-Lawanda wrote, "And I am proud to live in a country where if I so chose, I can express my disgust with my leader publicly and loudly and even, may I say, obnoxiously. "
For once I agree with Lawanda. But I'll go one step further and state that I'm glad I live in a country where I can express my disgust with my fellow citizens publicly and loudly and even, may I say, obnoxiously. What I see emanating from the right wing right now disgusts me down to the bottom of my being. It's ugly, it's stupid, it's mean, it's ignorant, it's vicious, and it's dangerous. Demagogues like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Dobson, Wilson…well, the list goes on and on. The vitriol emanating from them is astounding. After Obama was elected I knew there would be stubborn opposition just as there was to Bush, but this seems far worse. Where, I wonder, were these big government-haters, conspiracy theorists, and anti-socialist nutjobs when Bush & Co. were running up a gigantic budget deficit, getting us into two unwinnable wars (Johnson only did one), adding the largest social welfare perk since medicare (the drug benefit), instituting large-scale and sinister government secrecy and attacks on civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism (the Patriot Act was passed thirty days after 9/11. I wonder where they had it stashed to bring out so fast?), using the justice department to "get" political opponents of Republicans, etc., (all we needed was black helicopters with the presidential seal on them)? Oh, I forgot, it's bad when a Democrat does it but okay when a Republican does it (seeker's position).
There's something in me that'd just like to see the whole thing crash. Maybe it will. America can no longer be the world's swaggering bully, the cop on the block ready to bash heads (like the southern pigs – oops, I mean cops – raiding gay bars and terrorizing the patrons just like back in the bad ol' days. Ah, the South! Another reason to thank God for putting me in CA!). Maybe we'll finally be cut down to size cause we just can't afford it anymore.
>> LOUIS: Bush & Co. were running up a gigantic budget deficit, getting us into two unwinnable wars (Johnson only did one), adding the largest social welfare perk since medicare (the drug benefit),
Are you against the drug benefit, but for the Obama program? As a conservative, I am not against all social welfare programs, just some, like the gargantuan overhaul Obama is trying to foist on us.
As for deficits, conservatives criticized Bush for that, but Obama is making Bush look like a tightwad! Obama is worse than Bush in so many ways, and the corruption in his administration looks like it will rival any of his predecessors.
Your opinions are of little interest as you have already admitted that you cannot be fair and demonstrated that you have no intellectual integrity. It's so typical of you that you minimize your own faults and maximize those of your opponents – this has been a consistent pattern with you. It's funny, I didn't see these kinds of marches or this kind of vitriol coming from hate radio or Fixed News or you or Southern evangelicals when Bush was shredding conservative dogma. No, it's the liberal black Democrat who gets the flack. What I see is more hypocrisy and malice. I shudder to think you guys will ever regain power.
Hi Daniel:
With respect to racism and the tea party party, I think your standard for racism makes it impossible for anyone to BE a racist unless that person admits he's a racist. People these days don't usually go around saying they hate a person because of his skin color, but I think one can reasonably infer a racial bias from weaker evidence. It is a judgment call to be sure, but IMO it is obvious that anti-Muslim bigotry has a enthic component–it's not just about theology. You say I am assuming the worst about people when I infer such bias, but I don't think that IS the worst. IMO all of us have some degree of xenophobia and we ought to confront this rather than defensively deny it.
About the illegal immigration thing, a couple of points:
1. I agree that a big part of the opposition is about economics, mostly that the immigration of labor drives down the wages of those who would otherwise do the jobs for much higher pay. I think this is a legitimate concern and racism isn't the issue here. IMO immigration is a complicated issue.
2. But I also know what kinds of things I hear about mexican immigrants here in California. it's the exact same stuff I used to hear years ago in Kentucky about African-Americans. When people see a group of Spanish speakers and they ASSUME the group is a bunch of "illegals", there is no way this is anything other than ethnic prejudice. Certainly in this day and age very few people would make overtly racist statements, but I think it's naive to ignore the obvious here.
3. About Obama's alleged softness on Islam, you wrote:
Come on Keith. [Bush] did not, like Obama, say that he would sit down with these totalitarian leaders, and of course, Bush pursued the war on terror to win, while Obama campaigned on taking us out of there on a timetable. While Bush did make some overtures to the Islamic community, even going so far as to suppose that 'true' Islam is peaceable (which I disagree with), he did not travel the world apologizing for the war. And don't forget his attacks on Gitmo and waterboarding. Bush didn't do that either. QED.
For THAT to be evidence that Obama is softer on ISLAM than Bush was, you have to assume that Bush's war on terror WAS a war against Islam. Bush explicitly said otherwise–his was not a war against Islam but rather against a radical terrorist ideology. Obama disagres with Bush's foreign policy, but both agree that the war wasn't against Islam, so neither was being hard on Islam. That there are people who see Obama as a Muslim and see that as a danger to the US means they DO see the war as a war against Islam. You claim that isn't racist, but since it's not based on theological differences (except among certain Christian groups) then I'd say the evidence is clear that the issue is enthicity.
4. About the Confederate flag: I DON'T think that most people who fly it are saying "I don't like blacks". I must not have explained myself very well to give you that impression. For some, it's kind of the equivalent of saying "I like to drink whiskey and talk loud", sort of a "rock and roll will never die" tee shirt. But for many in the South it is a show of pride in their Southern Heritage and THAT'S what I have a problem with. Those Southerners are NOT ashamed of Robert E Lee for example. They should be. They should not have fond thoughts when they think about the Rebel stand their ancestors made, not in any sense at all. That they do affects their view of race today, I would argue. It doesn't make them Klansmen but it affects things for the worse.
your friend
keith
>> KEITH: With respect to racism and the tea party party, I think your standard for racism makes it impossible for anyone to BE a racist unless that person admits he’s a racist. People these days don’t usually go around saying they hate a person because of his skin color, but I think one can reasonably infer a racial bias from weaker evidence.
The charge of racism is serious, but you seem to want to broaden the definition to include anyone who disagrees with, makes fun of, or parodies the president, or makes disparaging remarks about illegal aliens, etc. I am not so loose with such accusations, and think that it is counterproductive to make such allegations when, at best, racist motives are such a minute, background item that you only serve to INCREASE it by making the accusation.
Even more, the inclusion of conservative blacks in the movement and the total lack of explicit racist language means that all you have is weak circumstantial evidence. It’s a poor standard for a serious allegation, and I think it is quite honestly disgusting and anti-intellectual.
But I think it is right, logical, and smart to limit the term ‘racist’ to people who disparage another explicitly because of race. Your looser standard, in my opinion, is not only unhelpful, it is damaging.
>> KEITH: IMO all of us have some degree of xenophobia and we ought to confront this rather than defensively deny it.
I agree, but to paint the anti-Obama movement as primarily racist is idiotic and morally and ethically wrong. People who are doing that are not only incorrect in their perceptions, they are CAUSING racism through their false accusations.
>> KEITH: But I also know what kinds of things I hear about mexican immigrants here in California. it’s the exact same stuff I used to hear years ago in Kentucky about African-Americans. When people see a group of Spanish speakers and they ASSUME the group is a bunch of “illegals”, there is no way this is anything other than ethnic prejudice.
I too live in CA, but I don’t hear or see what you do, and I am married to a Mexican.
But then again, what you describe above I would call stereotyping, which in my view is NOT racism, it’s just a simple tool that we all use when we lack better information – a tool to assess the situation.
Stereotypes usually arise from the average or standard experience, and quite honestly, there ARE tons of illegal immigrants here, and I would be willing to bet that in any gathering of Mexicans, there ARE a good number of illegals. Heck, just come to one of my family get togethers and that is true.
Now, thinking that they are bad people or up to no good may be wrong, but I don’t see that as explicit racism, it’s just bad stereotyping, or abuse of stereotyping, which is a valid tool just like pulling over white men in their 20’s to look for a serial killer is a decent law enforcement tool. Until you get better information, you go on precedent.
But again, I reiterate, even if some of the anti-immigration people are entertaining racism or xenophobia, the main motives, and the explicit stated reasons, are national security and the economy. You should take these people at their word.
If they were truly racist, their lips would confess it. I absolutely reject the idea that you can infer such a serious claim without explicit confession from those you accuse.
And I think that this is the problem with liberalism today – if you oppose ANY liberal policy, you are hateful, hence my articles Don’t agree with liberal politics? Hateful! and What is Hate?. The latter shows how the threshold for making accusations of hate and racism on the left is so low that it basically ends discussion, demonizes opponents, and removes any ability to discriminate between true haters and angry opponents with better motives.
>> KEITH: For THAT to be evidence that Obama is softer on ISLAM than Bush was, you have to assume that Bush’s war on terror WAS a war against Islam.
I see your point, but to think that Obama does not give the impression of being softer on Islam and Islamic terrorism (not much difference in my mind or that of conservatives, whehter your agree or not) is to be willingly blind of the differences between these to men. Since when do liberals want to make Obama look similar to Bush anyway? I think you are trying to win this argument by making ludicrous statements that you would contradict in any other argument.
Again, I return to this fact – there is no real racism in the conservative anti-Obama administration rallies and such, and even anti-Islamic sentiment is not racism.
The whole accusation of racism is BS contructed on liberal misperceptions and projection, and I stand by that assessment right now.
>> KEITH: For some, it’s kind of the equivalent of saying “I like to drink whiskey and talk loud”, sort of a “rock and roll will never die” tee shirt. But for many in the South it is a show of pride in their Southern Heritage and THAT’S what I have a problem with.
You can have a problem with that, but it’s not racist in motivation, even if it is perceived as such by liberals and blacks. The accusations of racism are bogus, mean-spirited, and counterproductive, imo.
And for the life of me, I can’t understand why someone as evenhanded as you buys into it.
Hi Daniel:
KEITH: With respect to racism and the tea party party, I think your standard for racism makes it impossible for anyone to BE a racist unless that person admits he's a racist. People these days don't usually go around saying they hate a person because of his skin color, but I think one can reasonably infer a racial bias from weaker evidence.
DANIEL: The charge of racism is serious, but you seem to want to broaden the definition to include anyone who disagrees with, makes fun of, or parodies the president, or makes disparaging remarks about illegal aliens, etc. I am not so loose with such accusations, and think that it is counterproductive to make such allegations when, at best, racist motives are such a minute, background item that you only serve to INCREASE it by making the accusation.
KEITH; Clearly I have not made myself clear because I do not think (nor did I intend to convey the idea) that disagreement with Obama is a sign of racism. You can disagree with the stimulus package, or the welfare state or even disagree with liberals about immigration without being even probably racist. I don't see how you can get otherwise from what I posted, actually.
DANIEL: Even more, the inclusion of conservative blacks in the movement and the total lack of explicit racist language means that all you have is weak circumstantial evidence. It's a poor standard for a serious allegation, and I think it is quite honestly disgusting and anti-intellectual.
KEITH: The existence of some black tea partiers (there aren't very many) doesn't say anything about the motivation of the lion share of tea partiers. This is not to say that most tea partiers are motivated by ethnic bias. I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that IMO you have a criterion for "racism" that makes even David Duke a non-racist.
DANIEL: But I think it is right, logical, and smart to limit the term 'racist' to people who disparage another explicitly because of race. Your looser standard, in my opinion, is not only unhelpful, it is damaging.
KEITH: The only reason I can see for the term to be damaging is defensiveness on the part of people who want to deny they suffer from ethnic bias. IMO refusing to recognize that as racism leads us to miss opportunities for growth.
KEITH: IMO all of us have some degree of xenophobia and we ought to confront this rather than defensively deny it.
DANIEL: I agree, but to paint the anti-Obama movement as primarily racist is idiotic and morally and ethically wrong. People who are doing that are not only incorrect in their perceptions, they are CAUSING racism through their false accusations.
KEITH: Except for the part about this causing racism, I agree. I expect so does the President.
KEITH: But I also know what kinds of things I hear about mexican immigrants here in California. it's the exact same stuff I used to hear years ago in Kentucky about African-Americans. When people see a group of Spanish speakers and they ASSUME the group is a bunch of "illegals", there is no way this is anything other than ethnic prejudice.
DANIEL: I too live in CA, but I don't hear or see what you do, and I am married to a Mexican.
KEITH: Maybe that's why you don't hear it. Also, when I first moved here from Kentucky I had the impression that some people were more willing to admit ethnic bias to me because the thought southerners would understand.
DANIEL: But then again, what you describe above I would call stereotyping, which in my view is NOT racism, it's just a simple tool that we all use when we lack better information – a tool to assess the situation.
KEITH: Ethnic stereotyping! Serious Daniel, explain to me how David Duke can be classed as a racist on your standard!
DANIEL:And I think that this is the problem with liberalism today – if you oppose ANY liberal policy, you are hateful, hence my articles Don't agree with liberal politics? Hateful! and What is Hate?. The latter shows how the threshold for making accusations of hate and racism on the left is so low that it basically ends discussion, demonizes opponents, and removes any ability to discriminate between true haters and angry opponents with better motives.
KEITH: I think that's an inaccurate condemnation of liberalism today. I do know a significant number of liberals who think like that, but I would wager there are more conservatives who think that if you SUPPORT any liberal policy you are against America. I personally heard a lot of that during the build up to the Iraq war. I agree that accusations of bad faith doesn't help further discussion. When I am talking to an opponent even when I think that a big part of their POV is informed by ethnic bigotry, I try to engage them with respect, I try to reflect on my own bigotries so to avoid hypocrisy. I sometimes succeed.
your friend
Keith
Hi Daniel
I think you are being a little silly sarcastic now. IMO in your defense of ethnic stereotyping you are )inadvertantly) defending people (a) mistakenly accusing the President of being a Muslim and (b)considering THAT to be a reason to fear him. That's ridiculous.
There is an Op Ed from the New York Times that I think articulates what I am trying to say about racism. I'll link to it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/opinion/19blow….
your friend
Keith
Now seeker is defending ethnic stereotyping. What a clueless, arrogant, honky buffoon!
>> KEITH: think you are being a little silly sarcastic now.
I am being totally serious. Not only do we all stereotype in many ways, including ethnically, I think there is value in stereotyping, and I think that is is anti-intellectual and extreme to reject this tool. In fact, the rejection of stereotyping, and the stupid resistance to police profiling is part of the stupefying of our intellect brought on by politically correct thinking.
While I think that stereotypes and profiling can be abused to where we decide people are guilty before knowing enough about them, if we have reason to believe that certain groups of people, in *general*, act a certain way, it is prudent for us to be cautious or whatever common sense would determine.
And you did not even yet attempt to explain Paul's acceptance of the ethnic profiling of Cretans. What I am saying is that the modern hatred for stereotypes is extreme, and I don't buy into it.
In fact, if some think that accepting such stereotyps is racist, I think that they are willfully ignorant. When Obama said that his grandmother had the perspective of 'a typical white woman,' I understood what he meant, and that he meant no harm, even if he was describing a limitation.
But people who react poorly to stereotypes because they feel that they are being prejudged are missing the point of stereotypes.
I need to think about this and create a more persuasive argument, but I am telling you that the modern disdain for and prohibition of stereotypes, esp. ethnic ones, is an extreme knee jerk reaction to the abuse of stereotypes, just like prohibition of alcohol was.
I don't expect many to understand me right away, esp. those steeped in a hypersensitive, race-conscious liberal world view, rather than one based on truth and the scriptures.
>> LOUIS: honky
I've always wondered why I've never really heard a really offensive word for white people – I mean, honky? Cracker? Why don't they approach the offensiveness of n*gger, sp*c, m*c, g**k, ch*nk, or k*ke?
Anyone know a better list of racial slurs?
Hi Daniel:
YOU WROTE: I am being totally serious. Not only do we all stereotype in many ways, including ethnically, I think there is value in stereotyping, and I think that is is anti-intellectual and extreme to reject this tool. In fact, the rejection of stereotyping, and the stupid resistance to police profiling is part of the stupefying of our intellect brought on by politically correct thinking.
KEITH: My point was about your defense of a particular instance of ethnic stereotyping, namely fearing people with names like Hussein.
your friend
Keith
>> KEITH: My point was about your defense of a particular instance of ethnic stereotyping, namely fearing people with names like Hussein.
I am not defending that, I think it's dumb.
Hi Daniel:
KEITH: My point was about your defense of a particular instance of ethnic stereotyping, namely fearing people with names like Hussein.
I am not defending that, I think it's dumb.
Good to know. And that is the ethnic stereotyping I object to in (some too large percentage) of the anti-Obama movement. I disagree with the conservative opposition to Obama but I haven't suggested (and neither do MOST liberals) that opposition is PRIMARILY based on dumb ethnic profiling.
your friend
Keith