I changed the names in some sort of attempt of not infringing on privacy, but it was already on Facebook, so I copied it word for word. This may also be stealing, but today I was just so invested in following conversations that unfurled from two extremely intelligent individuals that I knew in a predominantly white, conservative environment. Maybe it's different when race conversations of this level come from a personal experience, such as high school, as opposed to the disconnect of public media, however it is, the conversation I think is valuable and pertinent.
Chad shared a link.
June 14
the 2012 presidential election will be a referendum on race
in america.
How Racist Are We? Ask Google
campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com
Research that compares the use of racially charged search
terms with voting patterns suggests that Barack Obama's race lowers his chance
of re-election.
Like · · Share
Dan - I thought the 2008 election was
supposed to be the referendum on race. Do we have to have a black president
from here on out to prove America isn't racist?
June 14 at
4:03pm · Like
Chad - does the successive election
of 44 white presidents prove that america is racist? your question is
misleading, as it implies that the election of a black person to high office is
proof that america is post-racial. america is in fact still very racist...so
no, one more term in office isn't proof of anything to me.
the only
significant development in race relations between 2008-2012 is that the
racially motivated animus towards obama - partly because of the economy, and
partly because of the ubiquitous nature of racism in our country - is more
deeply entrenched.
June 14 at
7:01pm · Like
Dan -so then 2012 isn't a referendum on
race?
June 14 at 9:39pm
· Like
Dan Other points..
1) Obama is
the 44th President. Does he not count as non-white now? It seems rather petty
(read: racist) to say he's not "black enough."
2) Racism used
to be much more extreme than it is now which can account for the majority of
the 43(.5?) non-white presidents... but black America makes up 13% of
Americans. So we'd expect in a post-racial America that only 1 in 9-10
presidents be black, right? What I fail to understand is the end goal. When can
we say racism is dead? What needs to happen? It seems like pre-2008, the line
was "well there's never been a black president." Are you saying now
there needs to be a 100% black president? Do the next 6 presidents need to be
100% black to compensate for the 43.5 white presidents we've had so far in
order to reach 13% of presidents being black presidents? What about other
races? What about females? They make 50+% of the population and there's never
been a female president.
3) What if a
conservative black was elected (eg Herman Cain or Condoleezza Rice)? Would
he/she count in healing the racial divide in America or are they just
"uncle toms" or puppets of the white racist cause?
June 14 at
9:55pm · Like
Dan- 43(.5?) white* presidents
June 14 at
10:11pm · Like
Chad- Dan, your play on words is cute,
but not really too clever. yes, 2012 is a referendum on race in america. yes,
2008 was also a referendum on race in america. is that clear?
after
rereading my post, i see how you could conclude that i don't think obama is
black, as i said the US has elected 44 white presidents in a row. if you read
more critically though, you would have noticed that the second paragraph
clearly says that the racial animus towards obama has increased over the last
four years. do you think that i was saying that the racial animus towards a
white president has grown over that same time period? you clearly must have as
your entire response turns on that assumption.
i guess as
long as we're talking about construction and grammar, i should probably point
out that you read into my comments that obama isn't black enough. i didn't
write that, or even get anywhere close to insinuating that. in any event, thank
you for giving me a proper education on what petty racism looks like among
black folks, it's definitely informative.
i'll do my
best to address all of the logical leaps you've taken in constructing your
response. you start by saying in "a post-racial america we'd
expect...". i don't have to make any assumptions to see what's wrong with
that language, because it's plain on its face. if we were truly in a
post-racial america, there's no need to state that we're in a post-racial
america. you've fallen into the paradox that so many do, america won't be
post-racial until there's no need to refer to it as so.
secondly, to
use your own analytical framework, if whites make up approximately 60% of the
population, wouldn't that mean that income, unemployment, incarceration rates,
etc...should follow that same distribution? why aren't you criticizing those
statistical anomalies? why do you constrain blacks to proportionate
representation, and say nothing about the overrepresentation of whites in
virtually every facet of american society? should whites be incarcerated more
frequently, be disenfranchised more often, give up some of their wealth in
society in order to more accurately reflect statistical averages? the questions
you've posed are ridiculous.
third, you ask
the question when can we say racism is dead? how about when it actually is? you
point to obama as the final nail in the coffin of american racism. obama has
great symbolic value in the context of american race relations, but beyond
that, his value is only anecdotal. i find it hard to believe that you can
actually extrapolate his presidency to mean that american racism now ceases to
exist. if you really believe that, you're part of the problem. a colorblind
approach only works when you're white. i assure you, while race may not be that
important to you, it is to many of us who don't happen to share your skin
color.
further, why
do whites get to say when racism is over? there are some other ethnic groups
that share this country with you, they may like a say too.
your next
points are only meant to muddy the waters, so i'll answer them succinctly. yes,
women are underrepresented. yes, other minority groups are underrepresented.
what's your point? do i care about those issues? of course. is this a zero sum
game where one can only care about a single issue at the expense of all others?
you're qualified to answer that one.
your final
point is pretty interesting. are conservative blacks "uncle toms"?
well, i guess it depends on who you ask, but that's what intrigues me. what's
intriguing is that you assume that liberal blacks hold conservative blacks with
contempt, as if liberal blacks are a monolithic entity. i don't know if you're
aware of this, but we hold our own, independent ideas about things. we can
actually think for ourselves. the way you framed that question is so
simplistic, you surely could've come up with something more sophisticated.
also, shouldn't healing the racial divide include all races working together?
why is the onus on blacks to heal this nation? i guess if i assume that there
isn't an actual racial divide, but only a perceived one, i can see where you're
coming from. but accomplishing that would require that i suspend my disbelief,
and that i cannot do.
Friday at
12:04am · Like · 2
Dan- Your comments raise a couple
questions but let's take them one at a time... If the 2012 presidential
election is a referendum on race, what's that really mean? Does it mean if
President Obama is re-elected, then American racism is dwindling and
conversely, if not, racism is still "deeply entrenched" in our
society? Isn't that a false dichotomy?
P.S. I
apologize for coming off as trying to play linguistic tricks. I want to
understand where you are coming from.
Friday at
12:23am · Like
Chad- i've painted with a broad brush.
i apologize for diminishing the efforts of many white brothers and sisters
towards a more equitable society.
Friday at
12:23am · Like
Chad- it means that we'll see how many
americans vote against obama mainly because of his race, and not because of
differences in political ideology. during 44's first term, it's apparently okay
to refer to the sitting president as muslim in a pejorative way, constantly
question his citizenship, compare him to hitler, etc...cutting through the
b.s., those who say these things about him in public are probably calling him a
nigger in private. there's serious racial tension bubbling below the surface of
politically correct everyday life here in america. you're perfectly within your
rights to make whatever deductions you please from this election's outcome, as
i'm free to make my own.
the way you've
framed your question is again too simplistic. i'd agree with you that your
statement puts forth a false dichotomy, which i'm sure was the intent.
if you really
wanted to understand where i was coming from you could've just asked. i expect others
to have different opinions, and i respect those differences. i appreciate the
richness found in different perspectives and schools of thought. but far from
trying to engage in a conversation that pushed the dialogue forward, it seems
like your only goal was to poke holes in my premise.
when i address
issues pertaining to race in america, it's not in the abstract. a flippant
treatment of my personal perspective is offensive because it means that you've
already mentally taken the steps necessary to make my perspective subordinate
to your own, i.e., you as a white man is going to tell me about what life is
like for a black man.
i'll talk
about anything with anyone, but i do my best to do it with respect, and with an
appreciation of the dignity of the other participant.
Friday at
6:22pm · Like
Dan- I'm struck by this line: "a
flippant treatment of my personal perspective is offensive because it means
that you've already mentally taken the steps necessary to make my perspective
subordinate to your own, i.e., you as a white man is going to tell me about
what life is like for a black man."
First, can I
not challenge your thinking as you are mine?
Second, does
that frame every disagreement we may have as racial just due to the fact that
I'm white and you're black? And further as a white man, am I, therefore, unable
to empathize with the hatred another feels against him or her, whether it be racism,
sexism, etc?
I think these
are some of the reasons we can't have a real discussion about race in America.
If I disagree, I "don't know what it's like" or I'm speaking out of a
racial bias. How can there be any back-and-forth under those circumstances?
Yesterday at
10:08am · Like
Chad- of course you can challenge
me...when did i say you couldn't?
"does
that frame every disagreement..."? until we both become different races, i
don't see how it could be framed in any other way. that doesn't mean that the
disagreements must necessarily be adversarial. and i don't think there's
anything wrong with approaching the conversations in this way. your experiences
as a white male inform your perspective, just as my experiences inform mine.
yes, you can
empathize with others of different races and genders. i didn't see much empathy
in your previous comments, though. it seemed like you were basically asking the
question of what needs to happen before blacks shut up about race and agree
that things aren't that bad anymore. i know these aren't your actual words, but
that's what i gathered the subtext to be. if i'm wrong about that please let me
know.
why can't we
agree that you don't know what it's like, and start from there? i think that's
the problem, that too many of our white brothers and sisters assume to know
what life is like for minorities in america. of corse everyone is free to hold
their own opinions, but instead of simply holding opinions, ask questions and
get the facts.
25 minutes ago
· Like
Write a comment...
No comments:
Post a Comment