“Default” racism

And is Scoble shilling for Edwards by reminding us Obama is the non-default candidate?

The way you phrase the statement, their lack of disagreement doesn’t reflect racism, but their acknowledgment that racism still exists on some level. What you said wasn’t racist, so they see no need to defend it. Actually, there are plenty of people who would label you racist if you tried to argue with that statement! If you say that racism wouldn’t play a part in a black person’s chances of election, you can be perceived as being dismissive of racism. Stupid, but it happens.

And thus, for the people talking to you, it’s a game of exaggeration and superiority. They inflate the effects of racism in order to sound sympathetic to those affected and superior to the ones perpetrating it. They’re creating three things: victims, bad guys, and good guys.

There is a “Curb Your Enthusiasm” segment where Larry David talks about “white liberal nodding guilt.” David says he feels compelled to nod at black people as he passes them to silently tell them “hey, sorry about those other people, I’m not one of them.” Same thing here.

And frankly, while racism does exist at varying levels in this country, the main colors that will hurt Obama are green and blue. In fact, the same colors hurt Clinton and Edwards. They’re all too far to the left to be mainstream candidates, and they are all (or were) Senators, so they don’t have the executive experience usually demanded of a President.

Okay, I understand and agree that racism is ridiculous and unbelievably rampant, even in today’s society. However, I completely disagree with your rhetorical question:

“If someone says something racist to you, and you don’t disagree, aren’t you also racist by default?”

Of course not! I can think of a lot of reasons someone might not disagree while being non-racist.

For example, my girlfriend dreads confrontations. She will go out of her way to avoid arguments with people she cares about. If you were to make that statement to her she would completely disagree. 100%. But she would never say that to your face or call you on your “implied” racism because to do so would cause a confrontation. I would hear all about it later, but you would never hear a peep. Does her confrontational anxiety mean she’s now a racist? That would be an absurd conclusion to reach.

Another example…let’s say you made that comment to an African-American politician who has a decidedly different point of view than you. What if he (or she…don’t want to imply sexism!) agreed with you and said that our current political and sociological climate isn’t conducive towards an African-American President getting elected? Is that implied racism or a subjective critique of the voting populace?

I believe you are taking a narrow view of what others’ reactions or lack thereof means. You have seemingly made the decision that 100+ people are somewhat racist without allowing for other motives behind the lack of disagreement.

Before you get all pissed off you should consider other reasons behind the “racism” you experienced.

@24/Brian – Senator Obama is a Christian. You should read his book (Audacity of Hope); he talks extensively about his faith.

@39/TWaters – Obama’s father was Kenyan, and his mother was a white American.

I hope Barack Obama wins the nomination of the Democratic party, not because of his skin color, but because he is a breath of fresh air. He’s not tainted, he speaks openly and honestly, and seems to be a person who would give more than lip service to the idea of being a “uniter, not a divider.”

gwiz: there’s only so much you can say about the iPhone.

Enjoyed the read and social experiment. I can tell that the posting of the article elicited quite an array of responses from the comments.

While one person can never speak for their race, I am Black, a tech geek, and a minority in opinion in many professional and social circumstances.

Regardless of what is said, race is a pre-occupation of people just like celebrity gossip, sexual orientation, and income. The only difference is the historical and institutionalized branches tied to this hang-up. Barack is historical step in the direction of knocking that tree down.

Well, this is your blog and you insist on going to political discussions. This one is doing a fine job of creating conversation.
Here’s my 2 cents. I agree with John @36, we are all racist, as human beings we have a tendency to stick with what we know and like and shun what we do not know or dislike. We are always taking side on any issue:
1. PC vs Apple
2. Black vs white
3. Politics vs technology
4. Cats vs dogs

This will not change as man is flawed. I believe that Barack has a reasonable chance for election because of his skin color, we are fed up with what we have now, and will take something different to get back into our comfort zone. Mrs Clinton has an issue with the baggage she brings.

All in all, I understand the need to express and discuss issues of this magnitude, but I really enjoy it when you bring up crap about Apple and show how inferior it is to windows, (why would the business world use it and not Apple?)

Racism is something that will become a part of this election, nothing will change that, the end result of the 2008 presidency will be decided by a bunch of different factors and will not end as anyone predicts.

Guy

It is nice to have a discussion and not have to stoop to name calling and ranting.

A person does not have to be a racist to think Barack’s skin color will affect how *others* will vote. If he’s the better candidate, I will be more than happy to vote for him. That does not mean everyone else thinks the same way. We all know racism still exists. Unfortunately, this will affect votes. The question is, will it make a big difference? I sure hope the answer to that one is a resounding, “No!” but it’s not up to me.

The same goes with Hillary. I certainly don’t care that she’s a woman, but there are people who would think otherwise. It’s not right, but it’s true.

I think this is more race-consciousness than racism. The thing that happened in your neighborhood when you were a kid was racist. Your neighbor put enough stock in the potentially racist opinions of her neighbors to consider not selling her house to a black family.

Race-consciousness is different. It’s problematic for its own reasons, but it’s not inherently deplorable. I don’t have any more of a problem with asking, “is Obama electable?” based on his race than I do with asking “is Hillary electable?” based on her gender.

The real problem here is the overemphasis of electability. The Democrats focused on electability in 2004 an it got them John Kerry. They need to start focusing on a candidate who best embodies the platform they want to put forth as a party.

Agreement with that statement does not imply that the agreer (by silence or affirmation) is a racist. At worst you might assume your listener agrees there are enough racists here to make your statement a true one. Silence may also mean your listener thinks you are a racist and doesn’t quite know how to reply. If you were to say, instead “I’m not voting for Obama because of the color of his skin,” and your listener replied, “Me, neither.” Then your listener is likely a racist. Or a hypocrite.

For the record, I disagree with your statement. You are wrong.

Barack won’t be elected because his middle name is “Hussein.”

I would call it less default racism and more systemic racism. It is not so much that the individuals you questioned had racist tendencies, but they are acknowledging that American society has a systemic problem with racism. The systemic racism is propagated by both pockets of individuals who are racist, but also by the inequities that have never been addressed from the time of slavery and segregation.

Does this mean that he won’t win? While I acknowledge the deep and systematic racism that is inherent in the US today, I do not think that this issue alone will decide the election. If you have had the opportunity to listen to Obama’s podcasts I think he has shown that he has the ability, intelligence and wherewithal to bring the political conversation with the American public beyond the issue of race. A prime example was how he addressed a similar issue (i.e., religion) that has shot countless Democrats in the foot over the past 8 years. Since Clinton’s presidency Republicans have laid claim to the title of being religious and moral. Liberals and democrats were often painted into a corner on this issue. During his senate campaign Barack effectively showed his constituents that you can be a Democrat and a good Christian. The two are not mutually exclusive as many Republicans would lead you to believe.
I believe racism can be handled in much the same way; you can be black (or female for the same argument against systematic sexism) and be a good president. In the end I hope what the majority of Americans are looking for is a good president; one who respects the constitution, the rule of law, human rights, and one who trusts the American public enough to present the issues truthfully and in their entirety.

As for one of the previous posts that he will lose because his middle name is Hussein. This should be an issue that Republican should be ashamed of. To call a person’s ability to lead into question over his name is the height of political laziness (and many other words I can’t share here). Have we lost the ability to raise our political discourse beyond the level of an individual’s race, sex, and personal predilections? Have we lost the ability to discuss issues on the basis of the merit and logic of the argument presented? I hope not. And that is why I hope Obama does win. He has provided both Democrats and Republicans a prime example of how to argue a position without passing judgment on the opposing side. You can disagree with a person’s point of view and yet still respect the person and their beliefs. It is only through these types of higher level conversations that our polarized nation can come together and address some of the pressing social, economic, and international policy issues that are facing us today.

Careful with the grammer – these are two different sentences…

“I think he isn’t going to get elected, because of the color of his skin.”
“I think he isn’t going to get elected because of the color of his skin.”

The first one says his skin colour is the reason he WILL NOT get elected.

The second one (which is the one you told us about) suggest that he WILL BE elected for some reason OTHER than the colour of his skin.

Robert

You worked at one of the most racist companies in the world and never chose to say one word about it. With thousands of employees and sales rivalling gross national of many countries, how many black people has windows division ever had working there? even better, how many blacks have ever risen over level 61-62 (levels that are not even considered to be middle management)? Try perhaps 5 in the entire history of Windows division.

You didnt seem to care at Microsoft and stayed silent there even after this was pointed out in the comment on an unrelated thread – why the sudden interest?

Midge

Unfortunately, my political beliefs square neither with the Dems or the Reps. I may not vote this coming election since there is no strong third party that supports my beliefs.

I won’t vote for Barack not because he’s black, rather, I won’t vote for him because he’s far too liberal. Same goes for Clinton. They would ruin this country and hand it over to the UN. While I would prefer a strong third party instead of just two, we have to vote for who’s running. Edwards, Obama, Clinton… they’re all too liberal. And the Reps are fielding no one besides Rudy G. that’s any good at being a politician with a modicum of decency and honor. If Rudy runs, I’ll have to vote for him, since he’s the lesser of all the evils.

Saying He won’t be elected because of the color of his skin is something I agree with. It doesn’t mean anythign about me being racist. It means I believe racism does exist still & it, more than likely, will cost him enough votes that he will not be elected. So, when I read a statement like that from you, why would I come on and argue it if I believe it to be true.

The majority of people I know, and probably you know, I can happily say are not racist and wouldn’t have a problem electing a black, yellow, green or purple person. The problem in your country is, that just like the people who voted in the current administration, the majority of Americans are stupid white men. Those people would never vote for a black person. Imagine the entire south and mid west voting for a black person????

It will not happen in our life time.

I think that is the point you were trying to make. While the people that most of us associate with don’t have a problem with it, the majority of dumb Americans would.

BTW – I’m not taking a swing at Americans, I am Australian and we are just as guilty as you of electing a moron. We even have a state of rednecks who allowed a bigot to win a couple of state seats.

I’ll just throw out an idea here for discussion–one problem here is that the very *discussion* of the topic of racism exacerbates the problem of racism. Like a witch hunt, everything becomes racism. The more we talk about race, the more we divide ourselves by race. In the words of Morgan Freeman, the only way to get rid of racism is to “stop talking about it.”

Personally, I get the impression that, as a nation, we’re still just too immature to handle the issue. There are always going to be parts of society–amongst all races–that are racist. That will (hopefully) change over time. We also seemingly aren’t mature enough to be able to distinguish between racism and appreciation of racial differences. But in one very real sense, the more we discuss it, the more it doesn’t go away. We aren’t mature enough yet to have a vision of what it would be like not to have racism, and there is a point to be made that it is due in part because we can’t envision not talking about it.

Now, discuss.

“Imagine the entire south and mid west voting for a black person????”

“While the people that most of us associate with don’t have a problem with it, the majority of dumb Americans would.”

For what it’s worth, Minneapolis is in the Midwest, and it was ranked as “America’s Smartest City” recently, and 3 of the top 5 were Midwestern cities (St. Paul, the “twin city” of Minneapolis, was ranked as #4). That was based on bachelor’s degress per capita, residents’ SAT scores, “creativity scores” (such as patents per capita), number of universities, locally-born Nobel Prize recipients, etc.

I think the stereotyping of Midwesteners is quite unfair and not based on reality. Someone used the term “echo chamber” to describe what happens regarding attitudes on the coasts, but apparently it doesn’t end at the coastlines.

In 1999 the Gallup organisation asked the question:

“If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a ‘X’ would you vote for that person?” “X” is Atheist, Baptist, Black, Catholic, Homosexual, Jewish, Mormon, and Woman.

95% would vote for someone black, 92% for a woman, 59% for a homosexual, and 49% for an atheist.

As a nation, you have bigger problems than racism! As a shining example of a nation founded on secular principles, the growing reverse trend is worrying.

Downloaded the audio versions of Obama’s books from Audible.com. Listened to the man’s words in the man’s voice. His life, his, faith, his achievements, and the transparency of self that he captures in his writing and speaking; I remain impressed with him.

And I agree that the color of his skin will be a factor in a political race in America, but mostly because many Americans believe that this is what many other Americans are thinking. I don’t think its necessarily a bad thing that skin color becomes an explicit talking point in a presidential election. The effects of racism are just as destructive to a society that continues to live largely in denial of the cultural divides in America.

I hsven’t read all the comments because I’m pressed for time. However, I did want to focus on the one that is the most bigoted among the first thirty in my opinion.

“I think that when racism is not turning into discrimination there is no problem. Racism is about peoples “inside” feelings and know body else can control them. To be honest I’m sick of leftist shit trying to be political correct. Let us be free to be racist and distinguish the beauties of difference.”

Being ‘free to be racist’ means being free to deprive other folks of their rights. What Tomaat is calling for is EXACTLY what the post-Civil War amendments and civil rights law seek to end.

Also, your assumption that you don’t associate with people who hold bigoted beliefs may not be accurate, Robert. Try discussing black people with Doc Searls or TDavid sometimes.

In regard to your experiment, I think that if I, a person of color, were making the same statement, many white people would rush to tell me that Obama’s race is not an issue, precisely because it is.

The old chestnut of “are they racist” or “are they just stupid” is coming out this side of the pond as overt racism is played out on national TV against an Indian contestant of Celebrity Big Brother (and Jermaine Jackson is getting some, too). The TV complaint watchdog’s website has even collapsed under the strain of last night’s 20,000+ complaints that got through!

http://edu.blogs.com/edublogs/2007/01/little_big_brot.html

Just select a president who’s more interested in building bridges than bombing them. Thanks.

That is quite normal for me to say because there’s an ocean between U.S. and us. Yeah, puns.

@62 It’s definitely a challenge for his campaign organization; how they are going to handle that one? There comes so many bad associations, obstructing him.

I’ve participated in numerous discussions on Obama and Clinton, and in every one I’ve made two statements. 1) I don’t think Obama can win because of his race 2) I don’t think Clinton can win because she’s a woman. That’s not racism, that’s acknowledgment that racist attitudes exist out there. I would vote for either over any other candidate out there.

Elections aren’t usually landslides, they’re close. Each of those candidates will garner additional votes because of their race/sex but they will also lose votes for those reasons. I think attitudes, and demographics, have changed in this country – but not to the degree that the candidates won’t still suffer a net loss of votes.

On the other hand, if Clinton and Obama would take a higher route, thinking of how this country would gain from their pairing as running mates rather than what they themselves would lose, I think you’d see a surefire win that would propel us into a more positive future.