racism is dead
 

sorry, saw this and thought, "duh"

ABC News: Obama Has More Threats Than Other Presidents-Elect

this is merely a branch off from several threads suggesting racism is no longer around or that minorities have overcome and no further help is needed simply bc a half black man was elected president..

well..

we now have a half black president and people are saying, 'yay, racism is dead' but i know i hear more N*** references and muslim references now than ever....apparently bc being muslim is the same as being a 'terrist'

And this surprises you, how?
It was amusing to see the results by state on election night-looked more like who was on which side of the Civil War.

hey dearie, long time no see...

it doesnt' shock me, but there were many people saying racism was over..soooo, i just wanted to invite them down to a red state where, sadly, these things are going on every day..

what moron would say this man is a muslim merely because of a non-typical American name?
The incredibly stupid dislike because of his skin pigmentation was sadly expected, especially from some areas of the country. There are far better and actually valid reasons to dislike him based on his voting record, policies, etc.
-----Added 15/11/2008 at 12 : 03 : 57-----
Back in my Navy days, a BT2 ( he was white) I worked with told me about an area in Georgia he was traveling through with someone who was black on a security assignment. They got some ugly looks and passed through a town that celebrates around the "hanging tree" every year. The kind of looks where you push the car to the next town even if it is on fire and out of gas.

Ha! Got a pic of that? I'll look for one. I'm obviously below the mason-dixon here in TX, but I still think it's funny as hell.

I honestly don't care if a president is black, white, asian or whatever the hell tiger woods is (joke), as long as they do their job, I wouldn't care even if it was a tranny. Obviously I wouldn't care if it was a woman either. If they can command respect from the other nations and show respect for the people of this one, hey whatever.

Vote's over, guess I can change my avatar now too...

edit: done. LOL

Found one, yeah I see what you mean haha.

yeah, I remember back when Obama first put his hat in the ring, muttering to a friend that if he got elected the Secret Service would really be earning their pay. Every brainless KKK redneck out there would just love to be the one with the sniper rifle the day he gets shot.

It's really a shame when the PRESIDENT can't even trust his own people. No sense of civil duty, just pure racial hate. He won it fair and square, get over it already. Slavery is long gone, time to let it go, on both sides.

I'm just so sick of that. Race jokes, hey that's funny. I love a good race joke, even when I'm the doofass getting laughed at. Real racism, no that's not funny, or fun, or called for. I wish whites and blacks could just bury the fuckin hatchet already.

What fucking retards. They're about 100 years behind in the history of the US, not that they would know that anyway. Seriously, who ARE these people, and why haven't they been banished to some remote island already.

As long as it's not in each others' back.
Seriously though, I believe race relations, and the improvement thereof, is a process.
Not a situation where, okay, we have a black president, we're not racist. There is still a fair amount of confrontation that has to go on.
Anybody here talk with black folks about OJ or the Rodney King riots? Anybody try to understand why blacks constantly poll with widely divergent numbers from whites on issues like trust in the legal system, opportunities in the US, and so on?
There remain very few who openly advocate racism. Now we are in a far more subtle game, where racism remains hidden, but no less powerful for all of that.

I find it hard to believe that people can think racism is dead now that we have a black president... He only won by 52% which means there are a lot of people who don't like him. We still have a LOT to overcome in this country, and it frustrates me because it won't be long until minorities become the majority. Back in highschool, I learned about the US being a "melting pot" of people and culture. This is a young country and most families have immigrated here, in one generation or other. So it makes perfect sense that people continue to immigrate here and diversify the country. Get over it. I'm so tired of hatred in the 21st century... but it just shows how YOUNG we are and how much we still have to learn, collectively. :T

Like the OP, I believe there will be a spike of racism and violent acts for a period of time now that race is more in the forefront of america. We can't just ignore it anymore, say hushhush and sweep it under the rug..

Madame Fishstickulous, the 48% that didn't vote for him, that "didn't like him", I'm sure that for a majority it was his policies, perceived inexperience, etcetera....
The way you wrote, I read that they didn't vote for him due to the fact he's black, which I'm sure you didn't mean.

[QUOTE=Like the OP, I believe there will be a spike of racism and violent acts for a period of time now that race is more in the forefront of america. We can't just ignore it anymore, say hushhush and sweep it under the rug..[/QUOTE]
Sadly, I think it's a good thing. Ignorance, fear, and hate breed in the darkness. It's only when it comes to light that it can be addressed.

You know, one thing I've not heard anyone address yet is racism AMONG those who supported President-Elect Obama. I'm from Kentucky, which I consider to be "purple" state, as it goes "red" in some elections and "blue" in others. Our governor and most of our state-wide Constitutional office holders (State Treasurer, Auditor, Attorney General, etc.) and two of our six Congressmen are all Democrats. Our Senators and Congressman, as well as our presidential vote, are red.

Anyhow, when Obama secured the nomination, I wondered how my grandfather would vote. Although he's a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, he's also racist. In the end, he justified voting for Obama on the grounds that he was voting for a VP candidate--he assumed that Obama will fall victim to an assassin's bullets, and that McCain would have died in office. Also, throughout the course of the election, I heard of other Obama voters who still clung to racist views, or at the very least subtle prejudices.

So while I do think this election was a step in the right direction as far as improving race relations, the fact that a majority voted a black man into office doesn't mean that the job is done....racism and prejudice are more more complex than who one chooses to vote for. Just as the 48% that DIDN'T vote for Obama did not unilaterally do so on the basis of the race, the 52% that DID vote for him did not unilaterally do so with hearts and minds completely free from the chains of racism.

Fear of "the other" is one of the most hard-wired human ideas.

Racism will never go away, or if hatred of "the other" because of colour is something we grow out of as a species, we will replace it with fear of "the other" by some different factor.

The problem with racism (and other -isms) is that they are insidious; example - in my office last week, a young (20ish) white girl from a good school and decent in alomst all respects said it was wrong to call the President Elect a "spade" (once the gardner joke was explained to her) but that she saw nothing wrong with calling him a "nig-nog" because that was "funny, and not meant to upset him, I think he's great".

Racism is dead? really?

Gallup Polls - Candidate Support by Race

I notice that the Gallup data groups "Non-Hispanic White", "Non-Hspanic Black", and "Hispanic".

Where do all the asians go?

If it's anything like the definitions used by the US census, the "Hispanic" and "Non-Hispanic" are ethnic distinctions, whereas "White" and "Black" are racial distinctions. Of course, that doesn't account for why other "races" aren't mentioned (including Asian), but I haven't looked carefully enough into the link yet to investigate that. :)

i hope everyone realizes i was being sarcastic about racism being dead....

seriously, look where i live..it's alive and well

this thread more than any other, convinces me your average liberal = young white people trying to convince themselves that they have risen above, in their young wisdom, a KKK mentality that the rest of the world in. Congratulations young fellows, pat yourselves on the back.

and Daniel just learned about "the Other" from his college professor (roachboy?) and loves the concept. Fuckin hilarious.

The Secret Service has had plenty of practice for Obama in the last 8 years considering the madness of modern day liberalism. I would guess, and hope, that he'll have 4 good years.

matthew, have you nothing constructive to add to the thread? I see you're convinced of some strong ideas, yet you've done nothing to tell us why that is or how you've come to such absurd conclusions. You've directed your ire at someone who made legitimate comments, but instead of offering us a rebuttal, you give us mockery.

If you cannot respond in any meaningful way, then I suggest you stay out of the thread. Otherwise, please tell us what you mean, exactly.

(Hint: racism isn't a liberal construction.)

I'm pretty sure that was constructive, but to be on the safe side, going forward, shall i run my comments by you beforehand to make sure?

If racism is so wrong and evil, why is no one pointing out that over 90 percent of the blacks voted for Obama and under 5 percent for McCain? While only around 50 percent of whites voted for McCain? And over 40 percent voted for Obama?

To me that truly shows where the racism lies. I wonder if any other recent presidential nominee from one of the 2 parties scored less than at least 10 percent of the black vote.

Nope, in 2004, even the hated W with "racist" policies scored 11 percent of the black vote.

United States presidential election, 2004 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2000.... can't find data. However, in 1996 Dole got 12 percent and in 92 Bush got 10 percent.

What about Reagan? Can't find 84 but in 80 he got 14 percent and in 76 Ford got 16 percent.

United States presidential election, 1980 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point is that just as some whites may have voted for McCain solely because of race, probably more of a percentage voted for Obama based on race and not policies.

Racism is alive and well on BOTH sides and to be honest in some areas and aspects blacks keep it more prevalent and alive than whites.

I'm just sick of hearing how it is all one sided whites hating blacks, when I believe based on what I have seen it's more the other way around.

But in the end, whichever side in your eyes keeps it alive and revels in it..... racism is wrong and needs to be shown for what it is. Then again, there's an argument that by pointing it out you are trying to keep it alive. Just as I am sure some here will {or would love to but won't because it would prove me right} will attack me and make up all kinds of excuses how 10 percent of a population can vote GOP for almost 30 years and then drop in one year to below 5 percent.

I know EVERY black that voted for Obama, did so, because they all believed in his policies and none because their vote was race based.

Good morning mathew330. Vituperative as ever, I see.

I think you'll find I left college quite a long time before roachboy started, and I've never taken a sociology or PPE course in my life, so unless roachboy was teaching Chemical Physics at an unreasonably young age, it's unlikely he's ever been one of my professors.

What I have done is read widely, and I think you'll find that fear of the other is enshrined throughout political theory and philosophical writings. In the Western tradition it is present in Plato's writings on Socrates, it's in Nietzsche, and to Godwin my own post, it's got it's own special section in Mien Kampf, so I can't really say it's a new idea.

The Liberal tradition in the UK goes back a long time, and given that it pre-dates the Klan by a century or more, it's hard to see how it's a reaction to that. As for being young whites, I think you'll find that it was old men who abolished Slavery, old men who gave Women the vote, old men and women who created welfare programmes and healthcare systems, and so on.

At my age, it's nice to be called "young fellow", so thanks for that. :thumbsup:

I notice that you seem to be saying that liberalism is a sham - that liberals are trying to "convince themselves" of something. If people vote for tolerance and support for those that need it, at the expense of the super-rich who have increased their share of the wealth in the world many times over for the past few decades (and if you want to rail at that, please take a look at the available data showing how many times more the average company director earns compared to their workers now, vs. pretty much any time in the past), if people vote for a less aggressive and hegemonising USA, if people vote for an improvement in accountability, then I'm all for people trying to convince themselves of something.

matthew is just bitter that the majority of the US (and the world) see his views as outdated and non-conducive to a good society. He hitched his wagon to a train heading off the deep end and is now upset that people see his views as loony. The funny thing is the extreme rights solution to this problem is to move more right instead of shift back twoard the center. These extreme right wingers are forcing themselves into a minority position and it sounds like a lot of the GOP agree with me on this one.

pan...if you continue to believe that racism is voting for a person of your own race...I would respectfully suggest that you will never understand what is at the heart of racism.

Hell...until the Voting Rights Act was enacted just over 40 years ago (in our lifetime), many people of color were denied the right to vote. And even today, what voter suppression activities exist, they are generally targeted at minorities.
-----Added 16/11/2008 at 11 : 27 : 01-----
These recent threats against Obama are not surprising....such an event brings the most ignorant or the most insecure out of the closet.

In a similar vein, antisemitism has spike recently with claims that the financial crisis is the fault of a Jewish conspiracy.

The real danger is not these extremists nuts who expose themselves...but the racists and bigots who maintain a tolerant public facade and practice their ignorance and intolerance in more subtle ways.

Pan6467,

What I see pointed out that every previous election was around 10% to at most 16% by black voters, who were voting for two white males. Now you have a legitimate black candidate vs a white candidate, and you could argue that 5 to 10% changed their vote to democratic based on race. You could also argue that Obama ran a more effective get out the vote campaign that brought out people who had never voted before. You could argue that there was less voter fraud that was designed to throw out large chunks of the population. Or you could argue that for millions of people who at various times of their life have felt the subtle or not so subtle sting of racism they finally have a chance to elect one of their own. Maybe they did it to show other people that four years under a qualified black president is not going to end the country. Remember, this is not Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or Alan Keyes, this is a real politician with a real education who finally had a legitimate shot at leading the country.

I'm assuming that, as someone who believes that openly racist people are actually liberal plants hoping to make conservatives look bad, you didn't really need a lot of convincing to come to your conclusions.

I think the liberal sensitivty toward racism in this country being conspicuously absent when it comes from one of their own (ie - rosanne barr's reaction to proposition 8), and rears it's ugly head when one person in a republican convention says something stupid amounts to....well, usury for lack of a better term.

...and If you listen to cspan at all, and listen to the frequency that liberals call in trying to be conservatives and get busted for it, this idea of liberal plants doesn't seem so crazy. There's a population of liberals out there that you can't ignore, the behave and react to politics like no significant faction of conservatives do, and you only have to look to the TFP to see it. It makes sense, liberals target the poor and uneducated, not because their concerned about them, but because the liberal message, as empty as it is, sounds real good to them. And that disgusts me.

As does this thread.

Umm, I don't understand "usury" in the context you used it. Usury means to loan money with an exorbitant interest rate.
Are you picking words at random?

Can you provide examples, please. I'd like to know.

For myself, Roseanne can be just as stupid as any Republican in a convention can.
One difference, Roseanne's not running for office, or claiming to represent any part of the population.

Put down the thesaurus, please. Spell check, however is free. So are books at your
local library, try to read some that do not support your ideas, it'll help you argue better.

My apologies for not coming up with the right word, and kudos to you for pointing it out. You're quite the arguer (dictionary please!). All that aside, you know what I meant. So settle down.

Matthew, my apologies, sincerely. I was hungry, and perhaps precipitate in my remarks.
Let me try it again.
Roseanne Barr is a celebrity, and as such, receives "news" coverage outside her area of expertise. She, like all other citizens, has a right to her opinion, no matter how disagreeable. But her opinion represents her point of a view as a nominally "private" citizen.
Now, a member of a political party at a convention represents his/her constituents, or a candidate, or at the very least, their party.
So how can we compare the two? I don't see how.
There are a few other "Democratic" citizens I cannot stand, like Alec Baldwin and Michael Moore. I think they hurt, rather than help, positions that I myself hold dear. But they cannot be voted for, unfortunately. I would vote for many, many Republicans before either of those two.

The "liberal plants" issue. I imagine some must exist. Is this to descend into a debate over dirty political tactics? I would then like to review the records of Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, et al.

Then I'm sure you could come up with some examples of dirty democrats.

Just provide concrete examples, please. I would love to hear/see a youtube clip of a "liberal" being caught out trying to "pass" as a "conservative".

I read comments here like (paraphrasing) "voting for one's own race is racism (if you're black) or "racism is a liberal conspiracy" and I wonder if we will ever be able to have an honest national discussion about racism and race relations.

My guess is probably not, at least until it is more widely accepted that despite the gains that have been made towards equal access for all, wide disparities still exist as a result of barriers, less overt than in the past, imposed on minorities based solely on race....in the areas of employment, housing, education, health care, the criminal justice system, the financial lending system...the list goes on.

We also have to acknowledge that the remedies to correct those disparities and/or discriminatory practices can and have created feelings of anger and often a sense of victimization and reverse discrimination among the majority white populace.

There are no easy solutions but the problem wont go away by being ignored or mischaracterized for political gain.

it's not obvious that folk talk about the same thing when they talk about racism in the states...it's probably a modelling question, what different folk, working from different political positions and life experience, think of when racism comes up---this shapes what factors are taken into consideration and which are excluded.

the obvious dividing line is history---what counts as the history of racism, what it's effects are, and so to what extent the present is constrained by that history---this inevitably separates viewpoints. my own view is that the history should be understood broadly, that it's effects continue in myriad ways and so the present in this respect is heavily constrained by the past. so from that point of departure, i see most more conservative/individualist views of this to be untenable. but the point is not that--the point is that for there to be an honest conversation about racism in the states, there has to be a desire for one--and i'm not sure it exists---and some agreement about what we're talking about--and there isn't really. i mean, look through the thread or any of the many parallel threads.

curious to see myself name-checked by matthew earlier when i hadn't posted anything to the thread--it's strangely flattering to occupy that kind of space in his imagination.

Excellent point. I hope to remember it in the future.

you should be flattered roachboy. In this "space" as you call it, you remind me of my college sociology professors, that I really liked....just as time goes on, resent a little bit.

Troll alert!
 

Matthew, you nearly got a rise out of me. roachboy is far too clever.

it's cognitive dissonance; happens to the best of us
I go through a similar cycle every time my wife brings one of her stripper friends home from work and I invariably find out they are republican

incidentally, I've noticed a strange correlation between conservative women and their enjoyment from being fucked in the ass...literally, I'm not making a pun.

"cognitive dissonance"

Is that a french thing?

it's a New York thing...
but he looks froggy, LOL
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../Festinger.jpg

Seroiusly it ends now.
/end threadjack, I'm done. where the hell is spellcheck.

We can't have an honest discussion about race in this country when white people who don't see a need to continue propping minorities up are labeled as either stupid, racist, or both.

it's not so easy.

what you think or derive follows from the information and the rules you impose on yourself.
if you work with a problematic framework, even a intelligent, not racist person can come to bizarre-o conclusions.
the discussion, were there to be one, would be about the information that is included or excluded and the rules for moving through that information.
and i'm pretty sure that were we to have a discussion about this, you wouldn't be able to defend how your positions are built, timalkin.

so it's just convenient--you know---to pretend instead that it follows from some superificial rejection of a conservative viewpoint and to complain about it.

if you want to have an actual discussion, then fine--let's do it.
otherwise, i have reality tv shows to watch.

My point is, I heard all the news articles that stated 33% of Democratic white males were going to vote for McCain just because of race and how wrong and prejudicial that is. {Didn't happen, but that was placed out there.}

Yet, no one can dare point out that there were blacks that voted for Obama based solely on race. Isn't that prejudicial and just as wrong as the above McCain scenario that was played out to IMHO guilt some people into voting for Obama. Making them believe that perhaps they were voting for McCain simply because he was white and that would be wrong so.....

Yet, I never heard ANYONE say, 95% of all blacks are voting for Obama, a certain percentage doing so simply because he is black {when in actuality he is half black, half white}.

Why not vote based on policy and let the one who has the best policy in the eyes of the people win? Why was this election all about race and not policy and the future?

Racism in ANY form is wrong, and I saw a lot of reverse racism this election. Moreso, than the stereotypical white hate black.

But, it's racist, will be called racist and hateful to bring this out and talk about it.....

So how can anyone expect true change and understanding of sides and working to build a better future together when BOTH sides keep racism and hate alive and well.

The interesting thing about racial perception, is that Obama is viewed as "black" when he is what used to be called in Britain "half-caste", "mulatto", or "bi-racial" depending on which decade (century?) you're looking at.

Our perception of race is so skewed that we comment and notice the black side of his heritage, but often overlook the white side.

Presumably it is because the genes from his father's side make a much more obvious presence in his appearance than those of his mother's side.

It's the same with Lewis Hamilton - the stories often focus on the black side of his family tree, because the first thing we notice isn't "there's Hamilton, you can see from the shape of his face he's got white genes" but "there's Hamilton, you can see from his brown skin that he's got black genes".

Racism will exist until what colour someone is is no more worthy of comment than whether they prefer butter or margarine, or if they like briefs or boxers.

It will take many, many years (if it ever happens).

I honestly don't believe that racism will ever *completely* go away. I think we are just wired to see difference.

The best we can hope for is the ability to know it when we see it (or feel it) and act appropriately.

voting AGAINST someone due to their race = racist
voting FOR someone due to their race = not really racist

The problem is that many of the people who voted FOR Obama because of his colour, might also be said to have voted AGAINST McCain because of his colour - is that racist?

I say "could be said" because until you have two black candidates, you can't take race out of the decision making process.

If I am black and I voted for Obama not for his policies but by race...... how is that not racist?

because it's positive and not negative.

It could be suggested that it is racist to assume that X percentatge of blacks voted for Obama for his race rather than his policies if you dont have the data to back it up.
-----Added 17/11/2008 at 12 : 44 : 41-----
Obama saw an increased percentage in most demographics.....men, women, hispanics, asians, white, republicans, indepdendents, young, college educated.....

voter demographics - 1988-2008

yet, you single out the increased percentage of black voters and suggest that it was "racists" for blacks to vote for him at a higher percentage (than previous elections) as a result of few anectdotes that it was race based, rather than any hard data.

that's because they are using some ridiculous definition of racism that is so far removed from what it actually is that it's nearly nonsensical...which is what the point is. Render the conversation so far from reality that discussion about things that make us squirm is shut down.

Racism is about power and subjugation. It is not about simply seeing differences or even acting upon those supposed differences.
When people like roachboy and myself talk about racism we are not talking about individual actions...as in a black guy and a white guy see each other across the bar and one hates against the other.

Racism in this country is less about individual acts than it is about institutions that carry over the residuals from racist public policies that were themselves set in place by people operating within a racist context. A short history of how this works: blacks weren't people, it was illegal to teach them how to fucking read and write for fucks sake, then we "freed" them, then they could vote, but hey guess what, they couldn't fucking read and write so I wonder how effective their votes were...

and then of course, while they were milling around looking for their poll booths, aside from the shit like taxes that they couldn't pay, tests they couldn't possibly pass, and polling stations they couldn't find because the pollsters would move them around on purpose, but if they happened to get around town but so much as looked up at a white woman and found themselves hanging from a noose later that night.

while all this is going on, blacks used all their savings and bought nice little pink houses next to the white slave owners. oh wait a damn minute, they didn't have any savings. I wonder what they did...well let's just say that they built nice little communities where all the wealthiest wanted to live so their homes are worth a mint now...oh wait, wtf. who actually believes that? no, they live in communities that no one wants to live in because local tax dollars based off their home values are what pay for police, fire dept., SCHOOLS. So even the hardest working individual working his ass off to make sure his son gets up at the asscrack of dawn and drops him off at the school door but when he walks in there's a teacher who either is there because he or she can't work somewhere else or the rare individual who could work anywhere he or she wants but chooses to teach in Compton with no pencils, paper, or textbooks, or even tables because they want to change the world.

MEANWHILE, over in my neck of the woods, even the 3rd graders have computers.

So I wonder what happens when you compare the test scores between the two regions?
well it's this amazing thing that the white kids are just scoring the hell out of these SATs...of course, my school had professors come from the universities and most of them took college courses right there before lunch. and had parents paid for pre-SAT prep classes, and had parents who went to college so they actually knew about it.

meanwhile, the black kid over here actually knows calculus, in fact he knows it better than the kid who just finished his pre-sat tests, because he was staying out of trouble in the public library and started teaching himself some serious math shit. but right about the time he was going to graduate his dad was pulled over because he was DWB just a little too late at night and had some crack cocaine in his jacket pocket. so now he's doing 20 years in prison and unless this smart black kid drops out of high school and starts working at Taco Bell or goes into the Marines his mom can't pay the rent and his sister will not get her diabetes medicine.

so let's try and resolve this by offering federal funding to schools. hmm, let's see...oh wait, we already pay a shitload of money to teachers. they're just out to game the system and live off the dole. we better make sure that schools are actually teaching students shit before we cut them a check. let's make a test! now kiddos, if you want your textbooks and desks to sit in, then pass this test. WTF? what's with these dummies, they can't even improve their test scores year after year. I mean, the tests are so easy:
I can't believe that these inner city kids don't know that a bow is the front of a boat! how fucking dumb are they????
knew it was a bad idea to provide federal funds...we're just throwing money at a problem! teacher's unions, omfg, they are so greedy and they can't even teach worth a damn.


of course no one is responsible for this shit because it happened in the 1800's and no one is alive anymore...oh wait just a goddamn minute. That shit like killing blacks for the crime of being black happened 40 years ago. It still sometimes happens as a matter of fact unless you think the KKK is a hunting club now. And guess what, every single day these kinds of things prevent good people from succeeding. and I just sketched a brief overview of the education system. I didn't even type out the whole story because most people have the larger shit right about segregation due to the laws (de jure) even if they aren't aware of de facto segregation (segregation that happens as a matter of fact). I only mentioned racist crime policies in passing. There's a lot more to be said. maybe some musician will fill in the blanks on what happened to otherwise successful black musicians and why they aren't filthy rich...

institutional racism
look it up...it ain't going away...it's not even known to be a problem by most people (unless you happen to be affected by it or exposed to it somehow).

I see examples of the difference in the frames of reference EVERY day in my own house.
Smooth, well (albeit really long) said.

I was just going to point out that racism and racial discrimination are two different things, but I see that smooth has already done so in a more satisfyingly passionate way than I would have.

smooth smooth...real smooth.

Is it racist for American companies to insist that their outsourced customer service phone reps in Bangalore India americanize their own names, for example, when Mr. Akaljeet Sarminder CSR, must identify himself to his American customer as "Allan? Why can't they just use their own names? It seems undignified.

If people think racism is dead, read local newspapers throughout the deep south, oklahoma, Tulsa, in particular. Racism is alive and well. The KKK is alive and well. Just read some of their comments to articles about obama. I live in LA so that when i read those comments, it is downright scary. It 's not the KKK or white supremicist groups that are at fault but the Southern Christian Poverty Law Center. It's unbelievable. :orly:

Those whites feel that they have been marginalized now (and they are correct). They are downright scared. They have a simple agenda - fear, which is based upon ignorance and intolerance.

Demographically, if you look at those who voted for obama, it's those with higher education. Do a breakdown on Politico or REal Clear Politics and you can see for yourself.

I don't think it's racism. I think that in a society like the US, where a sizable portion of the population are economic nationalists (even if their actions aren't consistent with economic nationalism), they're just trying to avoid the appearance of having outsourced their labor.

"Avoid the appearance of outsourcing the labor" but what about the foreign accent over the phone lines? Are you saying that outsourcing is embarrassing to companies? That could be true, perhaps foreign CSRs are trying to cover for the errors of their masters, or perhaps they are just being friendly to english speaking people. Imagine someday having to help out a Chinaman overseas over the phone and having to fake your name because it doesn't sound Chinese enough.

the DirecTV or AT&T customer service rep can call themselves Joe Smith all day....it's pretty clear they're in India

Leadership is key, me thinks. I live in the "Motherland of Racism" and I cannot base this on any scientific data, just observations.

When Nelson Mandela became president, we had a lot of racism, he somehow, not with laws, but making sure he understands and supports all the races and cultures, and by gestures of tolerance, lead the whole nation to less racism, from all sides (black, white, brown and yellow-yes we have them all).

We, for instance have eleven official languages and he managed to make one nation of us. I think he must be one of the biggest leaders ever.

We still have a lot of problems, but let us hope we can get a leader that can help us again. Our election is next year.

I just want to jump in here and thank smooth for his last post. Very well said. It's always encouraging to see people who give a shit enough to give real consideration to the reality of inequality in our country. There are so many who will not see. Refuse to see. Especially when it comes to admitting that the reality of institutional racism today is directly related to our racist past. Good work.

Add my thanks to smooth as well...for explaining it in a way that exposes the stark reality of racism in just one aspect of American life.

Speaking as one who was born when "whites only" signs still existed, we have made enormous progress just in our lifetime. But how do we, as a nation, continue to move forward and progress even further towards equal access for all, particularly in such troubled economic times when many feel so personally insecure or uncertain about their future? Do we ignore those who are unwilling or unable to accept that what smooth described, and that is replicated in other areas beyond education, still exists and yet who hold their own more convenient definition of racism?

My hope is that sometime during the course of his first term, Obama takes the issue on in a way that is educational and not confrontational and that promotes a national dialogue that examines the issue from all sides.

His remarkable speech during the campaign should not be forgotten. I hope some will take the time to listen to it again..


...37 minutes is not too much to ask.

That is the speech that got my attention and made me sign up to support Obama. I have watched it several times, and continue to be impressed each time. If anyone has not yet watched it, I encourage you to do so.

and just bc my brother is about as smart as a box of bricks, i get this email today:



-------Original Message-------







White Guilt is Dead





By Tom Adkins



Look at my fellow conservatives! There they go, glumly shuffling along, depressed by the election aftermath. Not me. I'm virtually euphoric. Don't get me wrong. I'm not thrilled with America 's flirtation with neo socialism. But there's a massive silver lining in those magical clouds that lofted Barak Obama to the Presidency. For today, without a shred of intellectually legitimate opposition, I can loudly proclaim to America : The Era of White Guilt is over.



This seemingly impossible event occurred because the vast majority of white Americans didn't give a fluff about skin color, and enthusiastically pulled the voting lever for a black man. Not just any black man. A very liberal black man who spent his early career race-hustling banks, praying in a racist church for 20 years, and actively worked with America-hating domestic terrorists. Wow! Some resume! Yet they made Barak Obama their leader. Therefore, as of Nov 4th, 2008, white guilt is dead.



For over a century, the millstone of white guilt hung around our necks, retribution for slave-owning predecessors. In the 60s, American liberals began yanking that millstone while sticking a fork in the eye of black Americans, exacerbating the racial divide to extort a socialist solution. But if a black man can become President, exactly what significant barrier is left? The election of Barak Obama absolutely destroys the entire validation of liberal white guilt. The dragon is hereby slain.



So today, I'm feeling a little "uppity," if you will. From this day forward, my tolerance level for having my skin color hustled is now exactly ZERO. And it's time to clean house. No more Reverend Wright's "God Damn America ," Al Sharpton's Church of Perpetual Victimization , or Jesse Jackson's rainbow racism. Cornell West? You're a fraud. Go home. All those "black studies" programs that taught kids to hate whitey? You must now thank Whitey. And I want that on the final.



Congressional Black Caucus? Irrelevant. Maxine Waters? Shut up. ACORN? Outlawed. Black Panthers? Go home and pet your kitty. Black separatists? Find another nation that offers better dreams. Go ahead. I'm waiting.



Gangsta rappers? Start praising America . Begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. And please…no more ebonics. Speak English, and who knows where you might end up? Oh, yeah…pull up your pants. Your underwear is showing. You look stupid.



To those Eurosnots who forged entire careers hating America ? I'm still waiting for the first black French President.



And let me offer an equal opportunity whupping. I've always despised lazy white people. Now, I can talk smack about lazy black people. You're poor because you quit school, did drugs, had three kids with three different fathers, and refuse to work. So when you plop your Colt 45-swilling, Oprah watchin' butt on the couch and complain "Da Man is keepin' me down," allow me to inform you: Da Man is now black. You have no excuses.



No more quotas. No more handouts. No more stealing my money because someone's great-great-great-great grandparents suffered actual pain and misery at the hands of people I have no relation to, and personally revile.



It's time to toss that massive, obsolete race-hustle machine upon the heap of the other stupid 60s ideas. Drag it over there, by wife swapping, next to dope-smoking. Plenty of room right between free love and cop-killing. Careful…don't trip on streaking. There ya go, don't be gentle. Just dump it. Wash your hands. It's filthy.



In fact, Obama's ascension created a gargantuan irony. How can you sell class envy and American unfairness when you and your black wife went to Ivy League schools, got high-paying jobs, became millionaires, bought a mansion, and got elected President? How unfair is that??? Now, Like a delicious O'Henry tale, Obama's spread-the-wealth campaign rendered itself moot by it's own victory! America is officially a meritocracy. Obama's election has validated American conservatism!



So, listen carefully…Wham!!!

That's the sound of my foot kicking the door shut on the era of white guilt. The rites have been muttered, the carcass lowered, dirt shoveled, and tombstone erected. White guilt is dead and buried.



However, despite my glee, there's apparently one small, rabid bastion of American racism remaining. Black Americans voted 96% for Barak Obama. Hmmm.. In a color-blind world, shouldn't that be 50-50? Tonight, every black person should ask forgiveness for their apparent racism and prejudice towards white people. Maybe it's time to start spreading the guilt around.



.....


yep, racism..completely dead...

And here I thought white guilt ended when Ruben Stoddard won American Idol.

I think Mr. Adkins is confused about several of things. At least he isn't afraid to be smug about his ignorance.

Trust me, I'm not trying to make friends here, but black people voting for Obama in the upper 90 percentages I don't think can be called racist. That's about the percentage they vote for democrats anyway. It would be slightly more telling to look at the percentage of blacks that voted for Obama over Clinton, and I think it was far less.

With regard to what smooth said, there's not much to take issue with other than this.....

"When people like roachboy and myself talk about racism we are not talking about individual actions...as in a black guy and a white guy see each other across the bar and one hates against the other."

If you don't jump on the bandwagon when posts like Paq come up, as did filtherton - your silence makes the quote above sound like bullshit. Anything that can be construed as racist in the 7th degree coming from conservatives is pounced on by your average liberal, when blatant racist comments coming from liberals is ignored. It happens with ridiculous frequency, so I don't see how any of you can say with a straight face, "Racism, at its core, is what concerns me".

To me it sounds like "Conservatism, at it's core, it what concerns me", and racism is a tool that I can use to convince other people of that, because black people overwhelmingly vote for us. It's because conservatives are racist...see, look what he said!

Usuery-ey! If you will. Without the money.

Mathew...IMO, you still dont get it when your complaint is about "racist comments coming from liberals"

Racism has little to do with comments made by the left or the right.

As smooth noted, racism is about power and subjugation.

It is about one race using their majority power and influence to create and maintain barriers to equal opportunity for others based solely on race.

IMO you didn't read my post. You saw "Matthew330" and responded.

Mathew....the "other that this" (re: racist comments from conservatives or liberals) part of your post is what I take issue with.

It perpetuates a false characterization of racism.

and that was not the point of my post. Yeah ! now it's my turn to tell someone the "proper" way to contribute. If you're gonna find a minuscule sentence in a post and dismiss the whole thing based on that, because in your head that's all I said, then leave it and let someone else respond so it doesn't turn into this. I swear its an art with you all.

mathew...its the "miniscule sentences" (half of your post) and similar sentiments that some hold that IMO are not so miniscule in their own thinking) that can make an honest and open discussion on the issue very difficult.

when you want an honest and open discussion you'll go back and read my original post, see my point on the very first try, and respond to that Because I'm telling you, your responses so far are a clear indication you don't get what I"m saying, and don't care. For now, it's 5 posts back, I'm reduced to this retarted conversation (yet again), and someones gonna tell me how stupid I am for spelling retarded wrong just now.

......anyone else, or would you like to keep this up DC? Bueller, Bueller....

MMathew.....I read it again and I applaude you for acknowledging that "with regard to what smooth said, there's not much to take issue with....."

better?

So why the "other than this..." qualifier? (an attempt to make it an issue of comparing conservative/liberal "racist" comments) that IMO raised a question in my mind that you really didnt understand what was at the core of smooth's post.

I never said Adkins was racist, I said he was ignorant. He believes in a concept called "white guilt" and he believes it is widespread. He believes it is widespread not because there is any sort of objective evidence that it is widespread, but because he wants it to be true. I would bet that he can't understand why people are concerned about trivial matters like "cultural context" and "history" because he isn't concerned about trivial matters like "cultural context" and "history" so he, being the stereotypical sympathy-challenged conservative, assumes that concern for trivial matters like "cultural context" and "history" are actually just contrived rationalizations of guilt. He can't relate to the reasons other people do things, so he assumes that those other people are lying about those reasons.

To be clear, conservatism, as it is portrayed by actual conservatives, is what concerns me. The whole "we believe the government shouldn't tell you what to do unless you're gay, or muslim, or etc" thing kind of throws me for a loop.

Racism is an altogether distinct issue, though often people who dress themselves up as conservatives on the weekdays seem like the type who probably wouldn't have a problem dressing themselves up in clan sheets on the weekends.

It's much better *kiss*, let me tuck you in now.
-----Added 20/11/2008 at 12 : 34 : 52-----
[quote=filtherton;2563008]I never said Adkins was racist, I said he was ignorant. He believes in a concept called "white guilt" and he believes it is widespread. He believes it is widespread not because there is any sort of objective evidence that it is widespread, but because he wants it to be true. I would bet that he can't understand why people are concerned about trivial matters like "cultural context" and "history" because he isn't concerned about trivial matters like "cultural context" and "history" so he, being the stereotypical sympathy-challenged conservative, assumes that concern for trivial matters like "cultural context" and "history" are actually just contrived rationalizations of guilt. He can't relate to the reasons other people do things, so he assumes that those other people are lying about those reasons.[QUOTE]

I never said you said he was racist, and you may be dead on with your perception of him. "White guilt" and it's prevalence - I don't know, I don't really have much to say about it. If I'm forced to acknowledge the term itself, I suppose I would think DC in our most recent conversation exhibited some level of it. Its a term to me that immediately ends the conversation, because it's easy to argue against as you just did.

[QUOTE=filtherton;2563008]To be clear, conservatism, as it is portrayed by actual conservatives, is what concerns me. The whole "we believe the government shouldn't tell you what to do unless you're gay, or muslim, or etc" thing kind of throws me for a loop.[QUOTE]

I'll play the TFP liberal card here. Give me examples of where actual conservatives are telling gays and muslims what to do.


...and whaddya say to that. Perhaps we just live in two different worlds. Seriously? What?

I still feel like my point wasn't addressed, just diverted and ignored. OH well. I hoped I used the quoting thing correctly.

really? so when it's a minority using their power and influence to maintain barriers to equal opportunity for other based solely on race it isn't racism?

when chinese only want to hire chinese and not japanese or korean, that's not racism? or when mexicans don't want to hire guatamalans or costa ricans that's not racism?

Cyn....those acts you described are not acts of institutional policies and practices established by the dominant race to maintain that dominance.
-----Added 20/11/2008 at 01 : 22 : 21-----
I would put your examples in the same caregory as some Italians preferring to hire Italians or some Jews preferring to hire Jews (feel free to insert any cultural or religious group)

Aren't these examples of intraracial discrimination? Are you trying to make the claim that it would be racist of me, as a white guy, to refuse to hire a person because they were Canadian?

filth, yes, that is correct... I am making that case. When the Irish were discriminated against or the Italians, or the Germans in the 1800s, it's still discrmination based on race, which is racist.

But based on your thoughts... So it's not racist for the pakistani to discriminate or hate the indian...

so then hate crimes are only the ones where it's white on black...

but pakistani against indian, n. korean against s. korean, mexican against guatamalan....

those are just intracial crimes right? not hate crimes?

dc.. It may not have institutional backing and historical siginificance, but check the basics of the definition of racism. If you want things to be equal it's not about dominant institutional practices, it's about fairness to everyone regardless of color, creed, etc.

Cynthetiq, I'm not sure that it is useful to claim that racism and nationalism are the same thing.

so again, it's only when it's a white guy against a black/brown/yellow guy.

a spaniard discriminating against a frenchman isn't racist.. it's nationalist... okay. thanks for the schooling. I guess it's okay then to discriminate and hate in that fashion. /sarcasm

first off, what smooth wrote above is spot on. you could lay an image of institutional structures over it and be on your way to something of a starting point for a conversation about the central manifestation of structural racism in the united states directed against african-americans. you could generate another, parallel narrative to talk about the treatments meted out to native americans. to my mind, if you want to talk about racism, you are talking about histories that intertwine both with each other and with the institutional configurations that shape the present. and there is no running away from that history. the same would obtain if you were to talk about the histories of racism in france--which operate in different ways, manifest in different ways, but which are still forms of racism.

racism is typically organized in tandem with signifiers that shape how the "We" is staged and understood. i see nationalism as hinging on fiarly crude distinctions between inside and outside, and so as not only a kind of collective mental disorder but also as a fundamental enabling condition for racists everywhere.

now to head off the seemingly inevitable response, nationalism is not *only* and enabling condition for racism---but it is, in any situation, *also* an enabling condition---because it justifies the construction of institutionalized exclusions by giving them a way to make sense by way how nation defines the "we" which presupposes a "them" that is both outside and inside the arbitrary lines of a map that define the (capitalist) nation-state.

from this viewpoint, questions of discrimination and their reverse in questions of affinity based on race become surface repetitions of structural problems. it makes little sense to make the conservative move and try to separate present from past and then shift to abstracting racism from contexts in order to dilute the problem through sequences of superficial generalities. but this seems like a parlor game for some falk--what about this? what about this?---that i don't really find worth the trouble to play, simply because to get to it--to start playing---you have to perform the operations i just outlined, which more or less guarantee that you aren't and can't say anything interesting.

you can get worked up, but that's it.

so the main argument is that you cannot separate discrimination for racism AND that you cannot separate racism from it's histories---so that the bizarre-o post-bakke decision games that the right likes to play instead of talking in a serious manner about a structural problem within the united states---which condoleeza rice called "the american birth defect" (i will probably never quote her again) are nothing more than playing with memes in the shallow end of the pool.


aside: the email that paq pasted is amazing. what fucking planet does the writer live on?

rb... as I rode the train to work that's what my mind settled on.... if you're taking the points from a history teacher (no disrespect meant there just a point of reference) and discussion around Racism in the context of the history of America, then yes, the institutional structure I can understand.

but when it comes to pointing things out in the manner of stating that racism is gone once th black and white have settled their situations, in my mind is not the end of racism in any fashion.

Racism, in my opinion, is just another form of "tribalism" and that's so deeply rooted into our species that I doubt it can ever be erased. Tribalism certainly helped band people together for survival back in the "good old days." Now that the world is so much smaller, it's no longer a helpful trait and we can't seem to get rid of it!

Cynthetiq, with respect to #82, what the hell are you talking about? I never said that I thought that nationality-based discrimination is okay. I just said that it isn't the same thing as racism. Nationality and race are different properties.

You do realize that discrimination doesn't have to be racist to be bad, right?

Agreed.

Ignorance and intolerance come in many shapes, sizes and colors and should not be confused with institutional racism.

excuse me, just what is 'institutional' racism? :confused:

it's longhand for what they understand racism to mean in america.

when it's mexican against asian, it's not racist, it's nationalist, since they talk about power and dominance being held over someone else as being racism, that's the "white man keeping the black man down" type elements I guess.

at least that's how i've always understood how both filth and dc frame their racism points.

Cynthetic, you'd make more sense if you were consistent with your terms. "Mexican" is a nationality. "Asian" is a race. Before you were tryng to claim that Chinese discrimination against Koreans was racist even though Chinese and Korean people are presumably of the same race. It doesn't make sense.

In any case, racism and racial discrimination aren't the same thing (unless you want to ignore informative distinctions).

Ah sorry.. Hispanic against an Asian.... thanks for the correction.

please elaborate onyour informative distinctions, because as far as I have always understood, it is by the very defition in any dictionary I read as the same thing.

so an issue of my and my white professional colleagues denying a black man a sysadmin job would be racism, but andre and his homies spray painting 'cracker' on my car door is discrimination?

Please read smooth's post # 52.

i have... and it only discusses BLACK and WHITE.

So thus, racism is only a black/white, power/domininance thing..

and isn't and can't be (based on post #52) anything involving any othe races, hispanics against blacks, asians against hispanics, etc.

it's narrow minded and short sighted, again, talking from the point of historical context, instituational racism as a historical talking point, but racism isn't as simple as just black/white which is what these discussions seem to only center around.

Cyn..you conveniently changed your earlier post when you raised the issue of Koreans/Chinese (asian on asian) and Mexican/Guatamalan (hispanic on hispanic)

The discussion on the thread had been BLACK AND WHITE until you added ASIAN on ASIAN AND HISPANIC on HISPANIC...commingling ethnicity or nationality and race.

I would suggest that smooth's description ncludes WHITE (in power and position of dominance) and ANY MINORITY who face institutional barriers based soley on race....the only difference being that the WHITE/BLACK relationship has a longer history in the US.

It's not convenient... it was answered by filth as being NATIONALISM not RACISM.

But yet there is still Asians against Hispanics, and Blacks against Hispanics.... don't think so? Check out the gangs in LA.

Well, like everything else, racism has an academic definition and a conventional one (though the academic definition is conventional for a lot of people). Racism, as defined by people who spend a lot of time thinking about it, is inextricably linked with societal power-- people without power can't be racist. Now, you may disagree with that definition, but in doing so you're really inadvertently losing the ability to talk about what makes discrimination by those in power against those without power so much more insidious than plane old racial discrimination (which is itself pretty insidious).

The expected outcome of members of race A actively discriminating against members of race B changes dramatically depending on whether or not race A has the institutional power to facilitate that discrimination. Power is relevant in discussions on race. If you pretend that it isn't, you miss out on a whole lot of the important details.

Nobody is saying that discrimination is great, just that it is the kind of thing that is informed by an awareness of social context. We probably won't ever achieve a colorblind society. We certainly won't achieve one if we don't allow ourselves to take a good honest look at how things are and how they got to be that way.

see your answer is below... it isn't racism because they don't have the power.

I don't disagree with the definition, because I acknowledge the existence and ability to discuss from that point. But if those "racism thinkers" never step foot to the conventional defintion and see that it isn't just a black/white power/subjugation situation, this discussion stays as theoretical diarreah of the mouth.

There is a simpler every day concept of common sense and this discussion always talked about from that higher point never seems to bridge to the practical day to day reality of life.

I just find it hard to equate an ugly temporary inconvenience (having your card spray painted) with race based sentencing disparities in the criminal justice system...or race based lending disparities... or race based disparities in standardized college admission testing....that have a far more lasting impact.

If you think that is diarrhea of the mouth, I guess the discussion ends here.

no one is equating it... it is just that a word's definition is what the word means... if the academics seem to require it to mean instiutional and historical contexts because it needs to have all that baggage.... well that's why you posted #99.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" is the idea here, but you guys don't see it as such.