Racism is a Problem For All, Let’s Not Politicize It
I have not said much in the threads and discussion on racism here for many reasons, but I thought I would give my own views as to what I see is going on, and why the discussion of racism is going to be difficult. It requires us to move beyond pro or anti-Obama camps and to work with each other, even if it is not politically helpful. So, here are seven things which immediately come to mind as I think of this issue:
First, I have to say, on the internet at least, I’ve seen a rise of outright racist ranting, and most of it has been raised against the President. These racists look to what the President is doing, and work to oppose it, just because of Obama’s racial background. They find those who have other reasons to oppose the President, and join in with their ranks.
Second, I am sure many others have noticed this rise in racism. And I am sure they have noticed where these racists are going.
Third, the problem is, this makes it difficult to determine who is who when one sees a large mass of people protesting. While the protests tend to want us to think they are united in one cause, they are not.
Fourth, this means those who help lead these marches should be the ones who make it abundantly clear they reject any of the racists in their ranks, and reject anyone who would abuse their cause to forward racism. When they do not do this, it is not because they are themselves necessarily racist, but rather, I think they are blind to who is involved with their movement. It does leave them open to criticism. However,
Fifth, I do not think most of the actual leaders of these protests are themselves racist. They are, however, not doing enough to overcome the way these protests can be, and are, used by racists. Even those who disagree with the protests themselves should encourage the leaders to work with us against racism, and this is done by talking with them before accusing them of being racist.
Sixth, as such I think racism should be something which we can work to stop across the board. Instead of just using some of the people in a movement, who are abusing the movement, to indicate anything about the movement or the leaders of the movement itself, we should realize what is going on and work to counter-act it for the good of the United States. Do not give the racists a voice, just denounce them together.
Seventh, this is true not only about racism, but other concerns as well. That is, obviously, people who are supporting President Obama come with different opinions and views, and many of them are using Obama the same way racists are using anti-Obama protests. While a leader should address the problems within their movement, they will get supporters of all kinds, and they should not be judged by their supporters. They should be judged by their own words and actions. I remember during the campaign people would make cases against Obama due to the kind of monetary support he got. That, to me, was the same kind of error as criticizing his opponents merely because racists are joining the anti-Obama protests.
Comments are closed.
All of this is not to deny, however, the possibility that some such leaders might actually be racist themselves. But even if this is the case, I think it is best to determine if this is so or not, show the evidence, if it is questionable, question how them based upon the evidence (allowing for a charitable reading of the evidence), and only after a response is given determine if they are or are not racist. It’s best to act in the greatest level of charity possible — even if intuition/feelings are elsewhere.
Of course, what we see in the Catholic blogosphere, especially Americanist Catholic websites, is an outright denial of racism and belittling of real concern over actual acts and threats of violence among Obama opponents. This is disgusting coming from anyone, let alone Catholics. It’s difficult to see how any of these people will take racism in their ranks seriously or do anything to distance themselves from it. And until they do so, they are complicit.
I do not think most of the actual leaders of these protests are themselves racist. They are, however, not doing enough to overcome the way these protests can be, and are, used by racists.
Listen, when I visit my family and friends in the Midwest — mostly farmers, factory workers and truck drivers — they ask me what is going on in Washington. I take in on as my task to get them juiced up for social progress. I’ll tell them the little guy is getting screwed. We need to fight back. Consumers are ripped off by multinational corporations. And the big banks have too much influence.
However, I have a strict rule that I will make only one reference to the “New York Banks” within a 24 hour period, and if I do, I keep a close eye on my Uncle Joe, to make sure he doesn’t go off in a direction he should not.
It is a fine line. But my point is yes, these leaders need to take some responsibility or at least have soem awareness of what they might be sparking.
Kurt
Of course I think they should be shown the racism which is going on and and see if they will work with us to denounce it first. If they will not then it becomes complicit. It’s like everything else. One can be ignorant and assume people who join with you think the same as you. Ignorance is not the same thing as being complicit, and I hate to say it, we all tend to be blind to things around us. We do not want to go with guilt by association, in the same way that many accuse those who voted for Obama as being “pro-abortion.”
And I do think there are probably some who hold racist views. I do not deny it. Show them out for being that. I think one can point to questions over Joe Wilson (questions, though I am not sure if the evidence is strong enough yet to go completely one way or another and charity should assume the best). Others, though, I really think are ignorant and clueless. They are upset for many things, and as with all such rallies, they join in. It’s been that way for a long time. Rallies like this help let loose steam.
So I think we need to confront the rise in racism and racist attitude, and how the racists are adding fuel to the fire in the protests against Obama. But we need to realize the complexity is greater than mere guilt by association. It’s a pet peeve of mine.
Rocco reports an address by Bishop Steib of Memphis:
“Since that time tremendous strides have been made, and he cited the election of Barack Obama as president as an example.
“Most of us probably believed that would never happen in our lifetimes,” he said. “To say the world has not changed is to dishonor all of those who fought the battles for us.”
Some racism still exists, he said, and cited the recent furor in Catholic circles over the honorary degree awarded by Notre Dame University to Obama, who supports abortion on demand.
Other presidents have had disagreements with the positions of the Catholic Church, for example, in war policies and capital punishment, but have received honorary degrees without similar objection, he noted.
It is the subtle racism that still exists which contributes to the lack of priestly vocations among young black men because “it leads to a mistrust of the Church among young black men and women,” he said. “Let’s acknowledge that.”
As Michael and MM’s comments above indicates, one of the problems here is that there’s a lot of disagreement as to what constitutes a racist response to Obama. Many partisans seem eager to consider almost any opposition to Obama and his policies as racist, because this means that they don’t need to address the possibility that people might disagree with them for perfectly rational reasons.
I would ceertainly agree that the organizers of protests should be active in weeding out people carrying signs which are obviously racist and groups which are obviously racist. Such sorry excuses for discourse have no place in the public square or polite society.
But it’s serioulsy unhelpful when people go around claiming that any opposition to Obama is motivated by racism. With all due respect to Bishop Steib, I think that if MM reports his remarks above accurately they are probably somewhat irresponsible and indeed uncollegial (given how many of his brother bishops from across the political sprectrum expressed concerns about Notre Dame’s decision to give an honorary degree to Obama.) It beggers belief to claim that conservative Catholics would not have objected just as much to a President Kerry or a President Hillary Clinton being given an honorary degree by Notre Dame.
Indeed, I think this is exactly the sort of problem that Henry is right to call attention to.
It is the subtle racism that still exists which contributes to the lack of priestly vocations among young black men because “it leads to a mistrust of the Church among young black men and women,” he said. “Let’s acknowledge that.”
In the past, including in my own parish, Black men were not accepted as altar servers. Later, the rhetoric was modified to say that altar servers were for boys who might have a vocation to the priesthood — and it just so happened that all of the white boys were or were presumed to be on a college prep track while the “colored” boys were not. While the reasoning changed, the results did not.
Today (not in my parish), some Catholics will innocently say women should not be altar servers because they are not potential priests. For some who had the earlier experience, that claim, innocent as it is, makes them grimace.
Many partisans seem eager to consider almost any opposition to Obama and his policies as racist, because this means that they don’t need to address the possibility that people might disagree with them for perfectly rational reasons.
Many? I don’t see it. And I know for myself and I believe for the vast consenus of like minded people, our concern in not opposition to any of the President’s policies. It is the particular ways and means of expression of that opposition.
I would absolutely reject the proposition that opposition to any policy of the President — health care, cap and trade, EFCA, financial regulatory reform, missile defense, whatever — is evidence of racism.
It has been some of the actions used in expression of those policy disagreements that is troubling and questionable.
The “recent furor in Catholic circles over the honorary degree awarded by Notre Dame University to Obama, who supports abortion on demand” was an example of racism? Honestly? You mean, if John Kerry had won the election and had gotten an honorary degree from Notre Dame, there wouldn’t have been a furor? Anyone remember the communion controversy?
The problem with bringing the racism charge is that a lot of people who oppose President Obama’s pro-abortion stance or health care stance oppose it as a matter of policy, and not because of President Obama’s skin color. Me included. And it is insulting to me to be labeled a “racist.”
We need to acknowledge that, if not racism, racial attitudes exist and influence our actions and judgments. Part of that is understandable human reaction to unknowns and changes around us. Specific to the US, part of it, seems to me, is also the legacy effects of stronger racial attitudes in our society: slavery, segregation, negative attitudes towards immigrants, anti-Chinese laws, forced deportation of Mexicans w/ US citizenship, rounding up of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, etc.).
One thing I have observed here in Northern California amongst some fellow parishioners is a real negative attitude towards illegal immigrants. In the immediate vicinity of our parish, there has been some noticeable and sometime violent activity amongst the Mexican gangs. This seems to then paint a broad image that affects us and our attitudes towards an entire group.
What bothers me about the negative attitude towards the illegal immigrants is that many are our Catholic brothers and sisters who came to the country to escape oppression and poverty. And even if we do not want to acknowledge it, they were in many ways invited here to work in low paying jobs. We have also been blessed with such a wealth of material abundance and comfort that probably adds to clouding our compassion.
Our Church leaders need to be persistent in teaching us to look upon these folks as our neighbors. It is part of the difficult call to live the Gospel. We all have prejudices and other human shortcomings, so our Church leaders, our fellow parishioners and our neighbors need to push, guide, and enlight.
I would submit, Darwin, that an African-American bishop from the south kind of knows what he is talking about. I would further submit that it is those who turn a blind eye to what is going on as the Republican party becomes more and more the property of the southern evangelical fringe who are being irresponsible. We all saw the tenor of the signs in DC last week. And I find it strange that so-called conservatives who were the first to invoke “Godwin’s law” whenever Bush was criticized are now straengly silent, even as a former Bush administration official compares Obama to Hitler.
Here’s the latest from the man with so much away over the Republican party, Rush Limbaugh: bring back segregated school buses.
MM–
I tend to agree with you that racism is a problem for conservatives. However, your reading of the limbaugh quote is so out of context to be rediculous.
I would absolutely reject the proposition that opposition to any policy of the President — health care, cap and trade, EFCA, financial regulatory reform, missile defense, whatever — is evidence of racism.
It has been some of the actions used in expression of those policy disagreements that is troubling and questionable.
Agreed, Kurt. It is the expression of the policy disagreements that is troubling. I even grant that some of the expressions may stem from racism. But I would caution against labelling all expressions that are rude, angry, vitriolic, etc., as stemming from racism. There are plenty of examples of rude, angry, and vitriolic expressions on both sides of the aisle (think of the rudeness and insults against Bush and Clinton, against Palin and Pelosi – no side is blameless). But racism is a very serious charge, and we should be cautious about labelling mere rudeness and vitriol as racism.
(Now I’m not defending rude, angry, and vitriolic expressions. These have no place in civil discourse.)
I don’t remember seeing an anti-war leader denouncing the anti-Semitism in their movement and at their rallies. I’ve seen communist literature handed out at left-wing rallies without left-wing Catholics severing organizational ties. Yet conservatives are held accountable for every racist or Objectivist in a crowd of 10,000?
It’s easy to overlook the freaks on your own side. After all, they’re just freaks; you run across them everywhere. I’m as likely to be cursed at on a Gossip Girl fansite as in a politics chat room. Furthermore, it’s easy to forgive “quirks” in the thinking of someone who mostly agrees with you, because you yourself are an example of how the sane parts of their thinking can emerge from a good heart. But ask someone to picture the people who disagree with him, and he’ll recall the three or four nastiest things he’s ever seen coming from his political opponents.
So let’s try to be fairer than our instincts would guide us to be.
But it’s serioulsy unhelpful when people go around claiming that any opposition to Obama is motivated by racism.
No one is saying this. I’m certainly not saying this. I’m concerned about obvious, overt racism. And you don’t seem to want to deal with that or acknowledge how widespread it is. That’s disappointing.
The problem with bringing the racism charge is that a lot of people who oppose President Obama’s pro-abortion stance or health care stance oppose it as a matter of policy, and not because of President Obama’s skin color. Me included. And it is insulting to me to be labeled a “racist.”
Of course. I oppose Obama’s abortion stance and I oppose his particular brand of health care “reform.” I’m not calling myself a racist.
Again, the problem is the very widespread obvious racist views that we are seeing expressed, publicly, at these events.
“In the past, including in my own parish, Black men were not accepted as altar servers.”
A few years ago, I was given a book that provided an overview of the Catholic Church in New York State. It was interesting to learn of the ethnic animosities that existed within the Church between French Catholics vs. Irish Catholics vs.Italian Catholics vs. German Catholics, etc.
We humans have a long way to go…
Agreed, Kurt. It is the expression of the policy disagreements that is troubling. I even grant that some of the expressions may stem from racism. But I would caution against labelling all expressions that are rude, angry, vitriolic, etc., as stemming from racism.
That is a fair point. Not all. But I have found the rudeness, anger and vitriol to be far out of proportion to when similiar (or the same) policy propostions have been offered in the past. I can be agnostic as to what is causing this, but if pushed to find a reason, I am having trouble coming up with more than one possibility.
And let’s be honest, the most common practice of racism in our country has been to dispense from common manners when dealing with African Americans. Be it denying the honorific “Mister” when speaking to an adult man, or even more signficant slights.
“racism is a problem for conservatives …”
Racism is a problem for everyone, including liberals. I live in the bluest of blue states, surrounded on all sides by thick crowds of liberal Democrats. Many, even many Obama voters, love the idea of a black President because it gives them racial cover, makes them feel good about themselves, but still walk around with goofy ideas about black people and wouldn’t want their daughters to bring a black man home. I’ve lived most of my life in the Northeast, but also spent several years down South. I am absolutely convinced that although racism in the liberal Northeast is has softer edges, is demonstrated more through a condescending tokenism than outright hostility, it is still as pervasive as it is down South.
I would absolutely reject the proposition that opposition to any policy of the President — health care, cap and trade, EFCA, financial regulatory reform, missile defense, whatever — is evidence of racism.
Kurt – I would make a distinction you did not in your remark: I would say that opposition to the president’s policies in and of itself is unrelated to the opposer’s racial attitudes; I will say that there is an undercurrent of racism in some of the vehemence and slogans of a non-trivial portion of the opposition, and that is worrisome.
And let’s be honest, the most common practice of racism in our country has been to dispense from common manners when dealing with African Americans. Be it denying the honorific “Mister” when speaking to an adult man, or even more signficant slights.
Kurt, do you have a particular instance in mind, or are you speaking generally? I’m genuinely curious and I’m not sure whether I’m missing the reference to a specific incident of slighting an African-American with no honorific.
As for (1) whether the current vitriol is out of proportion with the past and (2) if so, is the vitriol motivated by racism, those are important questions to explore that deserve much time and thoughtful debate from both sides.
“I have found the rudeness, anger and vitriol to be far out of proportion …”
Kurt, where were you for the eight years of the Bush presidency? The level of vitriol and anger directed at the person of George W. Bush was stunning, including routine depictions of him as a monkey. (“Chimpee,” I think they call him over at Huffington Post.) There were even major novels and motion pictures fantasizing about the man’s assassination. I don’t recall you or others on the Left insisting on civility and demanding respect for the institution of the Presidency then. When Bush was booed noisily by Democrats during the 2005 State of the Union speech, I don’t recall demands for public apologies or accusations of reverse racism.
I condemn unreservedly the personal animus shown President Obama by anyone. He is an admirable person doing the best he can in a tough job. But the genie of anger, rudeness and vitriol was let out of his bottle a long time ago, and has been befriended by both sides in equal measure.
“Racism is a problem for everyone”
Amen. Come to the San Francisco/Berkeley area and you can neighbors segregated by race and ethnicity. Some of it is a legacy of another time when laws made it so (no blacks allowed to buy homes in certain neighborhoods, the uprooting of Japanese Americans, etc.), while the remainder is a result of socio-economic factors driven by the extreme disparities here between the rich and poor.
Kurt, where were you for the eight years of the Bush presidency? The level of vitriol and anger directed at the person of George W. Bush was stunning… When Bush was booed noisily by Democrats during the 2005 State of the Union speech, I don’t recall demands for public apologies or accusations of reverse racism.
This is precisely why I find framing the issue as being about “civility” vs. “anger” unhelpful.
The problem is racism. The problem is not lack of civility. It is perfectly fine to be “uncivil” and “angry” to a president whose policies are directly resulting in the deaths of millions of people. To organize giant protests where the entire point is to condemn a president as an “outsider,” a “Muslim,” a “fascist,” a “socialist,” an “animal,” etc. and in which a vast number of participants are make overtly racist statements: this is something completely different. Completely.
And to attempt to cloud over the obvious racist dimension to these protests and to wave it away as insignificant is itself racist.
And talk of “civility” is, frankly, a diversion. It is possible to be a perfectly “civil” racist.
I was directly addressing Kurt’s point about disproportionate “rudeness, anger, and vitriol,” not the question of racism, but I guess you can’t help yourself, Iafrate. Your sanctimonious self-regard and compulsion to judge others is so overwhelming that even someone who merely argues a separate yet contiguous point, is ipso facto labeled a racist. As we say here in the rude Northeast: “Screw!”
Mark – Cool down. I didn’t label you a racist.
Mark,
Where was I? Front and center in demanding the President be given the respect he deserved. I was documenting the extremism and lack of respect, civility and patriotism of some protest groups and disseminating this information to well-meaning friends and colleagues who may have been inclined to participate based on the major stated reason for the protest. And I made it known the organization I represented would pull out of any protest that moved in that direction.
I was editing flyers, pamplets and brochures critical of President Bush’s record and policies being careful to focus it on issues and not insults.
I was training volunteers to go door to door or work a plant gate for Gore and Kerry and writing phone bank scripts and turning people out for rallies. I can’t say that never did anyone step over the line. I can say I did not and I can say most people I worked with did not.
You know, if your last post had stopped after the second paragraph, we could have found substantial agreement; perhaps even explored new ground. But you can’t resist assuming bad faith, on this and every other thread; or tossing the word ‘racist’ around like confetti, as if someone annointed you the all-knowing arbiter of such things. And so, the third paragraph. And so, I’m out.
Sorry to see you go, Mark.
That last was for Michael Iafrate. Thanks, Kurt, for doing your part to maintain civility in public discourse. It is absolute vital that we hew to that tradition. Sadly, I can’t participate in this discussion any longer.
That’s too bad, Mark, as I pointed out to you that I did not label you a racist. I was referring to the general tendency of outright denial among conservatives in response to raising the issue of racism. I called a particular tendency racist. I did not call you a racist. If you took it as a personal attack, I apologize. But do what you feel you need to do.
Michael, I have yet to see a giant protest whose entire point was to label the President as anything.
Pinky – Yes, all of this is simply imaginary.
Seriously? Do you really believe that the “entire point” of the Tea Parties is to criticize the President?
Not just criticize: in your words, to condemn him as an outsider, a Muslim, et cetera.
From my point of view, the reasons why I oppose President Obama is his policies, not the fact that he is part black. I would still oppose these polices if he was white or any other color.
I would still oppose these polices if he was white or any other color.
You very well might do so. But the movement would not be centered around claims like Obama is an “outsider,” a “Muslim,” a “fascist,” a “socialist,” an “animal,” etc.
I recall a clever sign from the last rally: “It doesn’t matter what this sign says. You’re going to say it’s racist.”
Pinky – How clever, and yet, how pointless. The person attends a rally only to hold a sign downplaying the presence of racism in this anti-Obama movement. Rather than making an attempt to deal with a real problem in which he or she is complicit, the individual makes jokes. Shows how interested these people are in taking the issue seriously.
On the contrary, Michael. The sign isn’t addressing a problem at the rally; it’s about the perception problem in the press (and elsewhere). And I refer to the sign here because your claim that there is an “Obama is an animal” movement displays the same problem of perception. So let’s just both agree that you’re way off base, and have a wonderful weekend.