Breaking: Racism Not Entirely Eradicated in the United States

Although there are fewer voters who say they wouldn't vote for a black than say they wouldn't vote for a woman, and fewer of those than who say they wouldn't vote for an old person, my guess is that there's a higher level of antipathy for blacks, than for, say, old people. How many people hate old people?

I agree that it's not news and therefore doesn't really need a place on the front page. Besides that, it's fairly nervous making. Some of the people who hate are dangerous.

"Breaking News - Media is Occasionally Sensationalistic!"

The Law Of Unintended Consequences.

What has Hillary accomplished by playing the race card and extending her campaign to the very end? By all but saying the actual words, “my supporters will never vote for a black candidate,” she created the following reactions:

1.)A vicious SNL skit that labeled her voters as racists. 2.) Major news syndicate cartoons which labeled her voters as racist. 3.) Television entertainment hosts who made jokes about her voters’ racial preferences. 4.) Major syndicate columnists insinuated that many of her supporters were indeed voting for her because of race. 5.) An aggressive press that sought out Hillary Clinton voters in states such as Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Indiana who were willing to admit to the press that they were racists.

Which has created the unintended future consequences below for Hillary supporters:

When you apply for a job and discuss your political activities in 2008 or include it in your resume will the interviewer wonder if you have racial issues?

In the future when you mention that you worked for the Hillary Clinton campaign in a social setting those around you may wonder how you feel about racial issues?

In other words your very association with the Hillary Clinton campaign will become a negative in many others eyes. You will be branded just like product branding in many people’s minds. Clinton campaign workers instead of being able to brag about all their hard work and efforts to get the first woman elected President, will find it easier to bury that part of their history than to talk about it. Which is a tragedy, because the cause to elect the first woman President was so noble.

Her campaign strategy also has negatively impacted the good citizens of West Virginia. Because the press so eagerly went looking and found some of the most uneducated and bigoted West Virginia citizens they created a national image that West Virginia citizens are stupid and/or racists. What is worse is that some of the press who participated in the witch hunt for West Virginia racists were West Virginia newspaper papers and reporters. Was the West Virginia press proud to establish an image that their citizens are stupid and/or racists? And where were the fine elected officials of West Virginia who could have blunted some of the branding of West Virginia as a haven for uneducated racists? The West Virginia Republican Party was happy to reinforce the racist nature of West Virginia citizens. The West Virginia Democrats were silent. No one stepped forward to talk about the fine qualities of West Virginia citizens. You might think Senator Byrd might have at least issued some statement about how the press was maligning the fine qualities of West Virginia citizens.

Hillary Clinton will probably escape permanent damage for her actions, as the press and people are often willing to overlook the words and actions of battle. But her supporters and the people of West Virginia will carry the false stain of racism for many, many years.
In her efforts to damage Senator Obama’s chances to gain the nomination she instead damaged her own supporters and voters. Such is the law of unintended consequences.

"whether or not it's representative is another matter. The sheer numbers voting for Obama would suggest it's not. "

Pretty slim evidence. "the sheer numbers" who are voting for Obama are, by and large, DEMOCRATS.
Let's see how many indies end up voting for the guy (and not who SAY they'll vote for the guy).

Why a story on this does "a huge injustice" to non-racist non-obama supproters is beyond me.

I always thought that was her campaign slogan: Bigots for Hilllary!

You know, reading the WashPost article, I couldn't help to wonder how many people - those non-Obama supporter whites - would be ashamed to be lumped into the non-Obama-voting-bigots category and end up voting for the man.

Then I remembered that's not how it works in a voting booth...

Is there a difference between somebody who won't vote for a black person because that candidate is black, and, say, somebody who won't vote for a candidate because that candidate doesn't represent their ethnic group?

If there's an Eskimo candidate and an African-American candidate in a theoretical race, and a majority of the Eskimo community when polled says that race or ethnicity was a factor in how they voted, does that mean that that majority is expressing racism through their vote? Does it mean that they have disqualified the black candidate because of, for lack of a better term, virulent Eskimo Supremacy?

Is this sort of circumstance and behavior always immoral and bad for America?

Highlights from preliminary results of exit polls in the West Virginia Democratic primary on Tuesday. The polls were conducted for The Associated Press and television networks:

RACE, GENDER AS VOTING FACTORS

One in four Clinton voters and about one in 10 Obama voters said race was an important factor in their vote.

About one in five Clinton voters said gender was an important factor in their vote. Nearly as many Obama voters said that.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/05/early_wva_exit_poll_highlights.php

It is pretty obvious I would not vote for Obama, not due to his skin color, but simply because he is totally inexperienced, has no record to speak of except being rated the "most liberal Senator in the US Senate".

I could care less if someone is purple like Barney or red like Elmo. What matters is what they stand for, how they will govern, and ultimately hold the safety of the citizens of this Country above all else.

Obama waffles, waivers and flip-flops on any issue that even remotely appears controversial once it is pointed out and negative to his campaign. This is very scary.

But, his most serious deficit is his judgment or lack there of. His inability to look at someone he's known, in some cases for over 20 years, and not understand what that person values, what they represent and ultimately how their views may affect his decisions as a President.

Obama has not been honest. He has been a "typical" politician, who has associated himself with others for his own political aspirations. The so-called great race speech was nothing but, "Just Words".

I think he is disgusting.

Rev Wright / Obama '08, WRONG for AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!

Is there a difference between somebody who won't vote for a black person because that candidate is black, and, say, somebody who won't vote for a candidate because that candidate doesn't represent their ethnic group?

I agree. What exactly makes voting by bigotry and racism more destructive than any other selfish, self-serving reason to vote? Other than hurt one's sensitivities to actual realities about so-called "modern" America?

Is there a difference between somebody who won't vote for a black person because that candidate is black, and, say, somebody who won't vote for a candidate because that candidate doesn't represent their ethnic group?

If such voters exist, only white people can amass the numbers to affect elections.

You posit an Eskimo-Black throwdown; has there ever been a minority-minority matchup? IL Sen 2004 was Obama-Keyes... but they were both black.

In the Clinton-Obama race, blacks supported Clinton until January or so. Plus, blacks haven't been reluctant to vote for Dukakis, B. Clinton, Gore, Kerry. (Note: those dudes were not black). So I don't see the argument that blacks "won't vote for a candidate because that candidate doesn't represent their ethnic group." Whereas it's unclear that the race-conscious Clinton supporters would ever vote for a non-white candidate.

So, while your point is theoretically possible, I doubt that pro-self ethnic bias is electorally meaningful except among whites, who alone have the luxury of supporting no-one but fellow whites. (At least in statewide and nationwide elections. I bet it's more prominent in local elections).

(This isn't, necessarily, a reason not to support Clinton. If it turned out that the KKK supported McCain, or the Hooray for Hamas Caucus supported Obama, that wouldn't affect my perceptions of the positions of the two candidates).

Ana Marie,
After the last seven years the president still has about a quarter of the populace saying he's doing a good job (what do those people need to come off that opinion? I fear nuclear war might push his numbers up!). With numbers like 1 in 4 for the president, it doesn't seem a stretch that in certain areas and demographics some folks will admit (and others won't) their prejudices based on race.

"Some of them will be stupid, some of them will be malicious, and some of them may simply prefer another candidate. That's usually how democracy works."

I wouldn't get too complacent. Democracy is not guaranteed to work in the face of arbitrary degrees of stupidity and malice.

I'm an Obama supporter, but there are many legit reasons someone may not vote for him. For instance, the voter is conservative, or simply prefers Clinton's policies. That's great. Not everyone has to support Obama. It doesn't mean that they're racist.

There is some percentage of America (X%) which is racist and won't vote for a black person. This is a concern for Obama because he won't get those votes, and that's troubling, but maybe not the end of the world.

The problems come in when the media decide this is "the narrative" and has to be beaten mercilessly into the ground like the deadest horse carcass in the universe. (Ever notice that "the narrative" seems to come mostly from the conversation that journalists have with each other rather than from actual external conversations that voters are having?)

Anyway, once this becomes the narrative, than that X% of racists begins to creep. Others start to think "well, I don't reject him because I'm racist, but the media tells me that so many other people are racist that he can't win, so I don't support him either."

Long story short: it can be self-fulfilling. And all because the media are lazy lazy lazy.

I heard it suggested by a right wing commentator that the timing of the Washington Post story is meant to help Obama tonight. Now all the pundits can dismiss West Virginians as a bunch of racist yahoos instead of, perhaps, economically depressed folks who remember the Clinton years fondly. Can't help but think there might be a grain of truth to that.

TeresaKopec: "I heard it suggested by a right wing commentator that the timing of the Washington Post story is meant to help Obama tonight."

I heard that everything is a conspiracy all the time. I think various thought police are definitely out to get you Teresa, and destroy your way of life. I would be really scared, because everything is always an elaborate conspiracy by your enemies.

Is Rusty Dog saying he'd vote for Clinton. I kind of got he impression that he was more pro-Republican. Anyhow, Obama has joked that there are people who won't vote for him because of his ears and it's probably true.

It's horrible, but now I wonder everyday. It used to be that when I spoke with someone I didn't know about this election, we could share our excitement and exult about our embarrassment of riches in our candidates. Now I don't do that too much anymore because if that person tells me they're a Clinton supporter, instead of arguing the merits of our candidates' policies, I fall silent; wondering if this person is prejudiced against me and my skin color. I've even experienced some of the hatred and racist comments when I made phone calls for Obama in PA. As a result of that, I didn't make any calls in NC, IN or WV. I just wasn't up to it. I hated I couldn't do it. I'm not a quitter by any means, but it made me so discouraged to hear this kind of racism in 2008. It may not be widespread; that kind of vitriol may be located in just those areas. But the fact that it exists is concerning and disheartening. Hillary Clinton has done us all a disservice, whether she meant to or not. What makes this all the more sad, is the fact that she has such a stellar civil rights record.

Brendan
I was just saying that the other day and now (too amazing to be coincidence)you're confirming my fears.

FYI
Right after I said that a helicopter flew over my house and I could hear sirens in the distance. Maybe a coincidence but not after I started hearing a clicking noise in my phone line.

Also, I heard Obama prefers Muslin over American cotton.

Oh, c'mon Ana.

You are so so worried that one story in the washington post that won't be echo chabered to any significant degree will make it so you can't oppose Obama and not be a racist.

Way to combine concern trolling and straw man argumentation.

The traditional media spent weeks purposely revving up racial sentiment in a dubious guilt by association hit job on Obama by playing Wright's greatest hits over and over and over and over.

And after that, we are supposed to cry that one measly washington post story might somewhat honestly talk about that elephant in the room?

Yes, Ana, the only good journalism stories about race are when it is Barack Obama's fault, right? Or when it is about his problems with white wprking class voters, right?

And you say it is not newsworthy!

How dare the Washington Post break the code! Why can't the Washington Post stick to good journalism, like featuring Obama as Muslim on page 1? That's what you consider newsworthy, right Ana?

The narrative that the corporate media has decided to promulgate is that every single white working class person in America is a saint and if they don't vote for Obama, it is 100% his fault everytime and reason to conern troll about his candidacy.

You in the media dog whistle to racists left and right with your coverage and then you express shock, shock, that some people heard the whistling.

Rocks went though Obama's office in Indiana. I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to physically harm Obama in the course of this election. And the media will have blood on its hands for inspiring the violence with their endlessly race-based coverage. Oh, that is beyond the pale, you say? Well Bill Clinton blamed right wing talk radio for black churches burning in the 90's, so don't think that the media has no part in this.

Was Wright newsworthy? Sure. Maybe twice as newswothy as Hagee. Ok, let's be generous to you. Ten times as newsworthy as Hagee. Well, why did Wright get 1000 times more coverage than Hagee? Is that fair? Is that proportionate?

But, no that washington post article is the true injustice, right?

But to get to the heart of the matter that "concerns" you, don't worry Ana - you are not a racist if you don't support Obama. McCain's your buddy and your boss is an elitist corporatist Republican - that;s the real reason that you and your ilk will carry McCain's water in this election...because you value money and personal friendships over the best interests of America. Who needs flag pins when you are pillaging the wealth of this country and using psyops to get the populace to support you? You probably know that endless war, tax cuts for the rich, etc are not in the country's best interest, but they may be in your personal interest.

So no Ana, you don't need to feel guilty about your personal racism when you are you colleagues will inevitably aid and abet the right wing attack machine...but you might want to feel guilty about your patriotism. How many people will die or go hungry or without health care because you made the election about identity politics? How much more of our wealth will be transfered to a rising China, that if unchecked, will overcome us economically and militarily in this century?

This washington post story is nothing compared to the overt calls by the bush people in 2003 that if you opposed the war, you supported terrrorism. But that type of guilt tripping is ok, because it supports the military industrial complex and there's lotsa pulitzers that can be won covering a historic event like a war!

I don't think this story isn't saying that all votes against Obama are due to racism. But I've been surprised at how little racism in the electorate has been covered by the media, actually. Stories about about whether surrogates' statements are racist (e.g., Ferraro, Clinton), but have we seen polling done on it?

If campaign volunteers are running into it as discussed in the story, it is a very real, significant issue. Why ignore it and cover it up? I think it needs sunshine to expose, and perhaps help irradicate, this stuff.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 13, 2008 7:46 PM:

Plus, blacks haven't been reluctant to vote for Dukakis, B. Clinton, Gore, Kerry. (Note: those dudes were not black).

That is certainly true (I mean the voting patterns as well as John Kerry not being of at least partial African descent).

That being said, if the party is the ethnic or racial identifier, in part because 99 percent of African-American politicians are Democrats, then it may actually turn out to be a case of voting for "one's own" on the part of African-Americans --especially if there has been no other choice up until this presidential election. I know that Obama supporters like to point out the numbers of black Clinton supporters up until South Carolina as evidence of "racism catching up with the Clintons", but I see that more in terms of an electability question being answered, and name-recognition catching up.

I just don't think that the evidence suggests that African-Americans have been color-blind in electoral contests up until now. The fact that many districts are gerrymandered by race flies in the face of that argument. What has been the case up until this point is that the concept of a black president has been a rather surreal joke to many in that community (take a look at Dave Chappelle's sketches, or Cedric the Entertainer's riff in Kings of Comedy), and that the votes have been for the next best thing, which is the African-American brand in politics --the Democrat, whoever that may be.

If such voters exist, only white people can amass the numbers to affect elections.

Let's get one thing straight, right off:

there is no such community as "white people".

If there were, I wouldn't be referred to as a Yankee in some places I've been. I wouldn't have the notion that I do of Easterners, nor would I have enjoyed the culinary (and alcohol-derived) delights of the Poles, Swedes, Germans, Russians, Russian Jews, Irish, Romanians, Italians, Swiss, Ukraines, Slovaks and a whole catalog of other people of various religions and ethnicities who are in various stages of immigration and assimilation throughout various regions in this vastly populous 2700 mile long country.

Saying that white votes in Iowa are identical in motive and affirmation as votes in Boston or Georgia or San Fransisco or Arizona is ludicrous, IMO. "White voters" aren't en masse deciding elections in "their favor" through some "luxury" of shared identity. That's absurd.

So in the insanely heterogeneous America that I know, Appalachian whites are like f--king Eskimos, in that the majority exist within a distinct regional and ethnic sub-cultural minority --and who have stereotypes, issues and concerns related to them, and not "white people". It's not crazy in a low information environment for some people to look at the candidates and ask "who's most like me, given that my group isn't represented at all --again", and then vote that way.

It's tribalism or regionalism, not racism.
It's political self-affirmation, not classical theories of racial inferiority.
It's why the winning Democratic presidential candidates in the past thirty years have all had Southern accents.

There is no "luxury of supporting fellow whites", as far as I can tell. From what I can gather, a case could be made for upper middle class whites voting against working class whites, from whom they are desperate to escape identification. And there seems to be an electoral push-back from less cosmopolitan, more regionally and ethnically identified (no nice out-of-state college years "experimenting"), more "practical" hard-life experienced people who don't see themselves represented by the guy with the rich foreign wife who wind-surfs and eats cheese --or his African-American friend in the Senate.

To not understand that classical white supremacist racism isn't necessarily the root of so many folks' lack of identification with liberalism or Democrats --or a black candidate-- is to mis-identify a big, big problem with our brand. This mis-understanding is a big part of the reason why we can't get public health care in this country. There's a reason why Democrats were able to get the New Deal installed in America, and that's because ordinary working people who made up the urban landscape prior to the most recent wave of African migration northward thought that the Democrats were in power to look out for them and their interests, and not to right social injustices perhaps at their expenses. Without addressing this basic issue of peoples' practical interests, and understanding that "white privilege" isn't and has never been enjoyed equally by every "white person" everywhere in America, Democrats and liberals make the terrible mistake so perfectly articulated by Barack Obama in his Philadelphia address:

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience — as far as they're concerned, no one handed them anything. They built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pensions dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and they feel their dreams slipping away. And in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear an African-American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze — a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns — this too widens the racial divide and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now.

This is where we are right now, Elvis.
As the reality-based community, the people who are supposedly comfortable with nuance, we are supposed to have been the ones who didn't need to be told this basic truth by Barack Obama: that nothing in this complex political and electoral scenario is as simple as black and white.

That's my opinion, anyway.
Thanks for reading this, Elvis; I hope that you'll pardon my disagreement.

Sorry, that should have been "African-American migration northward", typo.

"Is there a difference between somebody who won't vote for a black person because that candidate is black, and, say, somebody who won't vote for a candidate because that candidate doesn't represent their ethnic group?" - stuart, yes there is a difference in the type and magnitude of prejudice. I would guess that it's much easier to overcome the latter type of prejudice.

RKA, this is a real issue, as is racism obviously. The basic problem is that people are talking in absolutes. By implying that no one voting against Obama is racist - which only the openly right-wing media is doing, if we're talking about strawman arguments - people are denying blatant prejudice and minimizing both Obama's obstacles and achievements in this election. But by implying that all working-class whites voting for Clinton are racist, the MSM is being unfair and risks alienating white voters from the Obama campaign (it's also stupidly ignoring the double standard Clinton faces; could it just be that she is doing a better job of meeting the double standard with these particular voters?).

Constantly talking about Obama being unelectable could actually make him unelectable.

stuart, those are great excerpts from Obama's speech. He must be very worried about the MSM's inept and counter-productive coverage of race in this campaign...

...yes there is a difference in the type and magnitude of prejudice. I would guess that it's much easier to overcome the latter type of prejudice.

Rose:

I agree entirely.

...oh, god.

and "the guy with the rich foreign wife who wind-surfs and eats cheese"

er...I meant the guy who wind-surfs, who also has a wife...not that the wife wind-surfs...he also eats cheese...

Never mind.

stuart, do we know that Teresa Heinz Kerry doesn't windsurf? Or eat cheese?

That correction may have been premature...

Rose,
"Constantly talking about Obama being unelectable could actually make him unelectable."

Yes, and this has been HRC's strategy (really, her only chance) for a while.

I am just watching Hillary give her speech and I cant understand all these talk about her voters been racist.It looks like her biggest cheerleader in West Virginia is a black guy.We might be misunderstanding that West Virgina.

Rusty, in time-honored tradition of Repugnants everywhere, you're voting for whomever your Supreme Repug Leaders tell you to. You're not gifted with "freewill." As a good Repug / Conservative, you do what you're told.

The Repugs could field an old, double-talking, geezer who can't keep basic players in the Iraqi theater straight, and you'd champion him to the death, simply because you were told to. God, himself, could be on the other side of the ballot box, and you'd say he was the devil because he wasn't Repugnant.

You're not fooling anyone, Rusty.

I would bet that Teresa Heinz Kerry eats cheese at least. Not many people don't.

@KathyR,
"Although there are fewer voters who say they wouldn't vote for a black than say they wouldn't vote for a woman"

Could you please provide some support for this assertion. On the surface it seems doubtful, considering that more than 50% of the electorate are women, whereas only 15% or so of the US population is African-American. Are there really a lot of women who wouldn't vote for a woman?

The other issue of course is what they would actually do, rather than just say. People, especially conservatives, may be more comfortable admitting that they wouldn't vote for a woman.

Malcolm, I can see your point. The difference is that I think Clinton - and people like me - feel that Obama can be elected, but that he won't because he will make the wrong decisions in terms of getting his message across, and making the election about issues (that's where I think he'll go wrong). We're not saying that he can't be elected because white people are too racist; we're saying that he doesn't seem to know how to beat John McCain. Big difference. Also, one of the Obama campaign's main arguments at the start of this election was electability, specifically in relation to people hating Clinton so much that she was unelectable.

In addition, what makes the MSM argument so damaging is that they risk making many white working-class voters feel that they have to vote for Obama to prove that they're not racist. That's a horrible electoral strategy, and obviously it's in both the Clinton and Obama campaigns interests to fight that narrative; Obama doesn't want to alienate working-class whites, and Clinton wants to get the credit she deserves for winning their votes. Clinton is pointing out the problems Obama faces, while the MSM is actually advancing the specific narrative that will make him unelectable. The Clinton narrative leaves the door open to Obama's electoral chances improving - even she said he can be elected, but that she will be elected - but the MSM's doesn't.

Here's a quote from another post I made on a different thread that more clearly states why I think the MSM's narrative is so damaging: "all I'm sure about is that if the MSM keeps saying that working-class whites aren't voting for Obama because they are racist, they will end up not voting for him in November. It's just embarrassing to see a bunch of rich white guys on TV constantly talk about the prejudices of poorer white people."

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response, Stuart.

It's true that there is no such thing as "the white community." But there's an awful lot of heterogeneity among blacks, too. Urban/rural, upper or middle-class/lower-class, immigrant/non-immigrant, etc. More importantly, whiteness becomes more salient when contrasted with blackness, as opposed to Northern-ness or Polish-ness or whatever.

So you have experienced being cast as the outsider as a Northerner. But surely it wouldn't have helped matters were you also black (click that link just for the second comment). In fact, then your Northernness might not even have come up.

if the party is the ethnic or racial identifier, in part because 99 percent of African-American politicians are Democrats, then it may actually turn out to be a case of voting for "one's own" on the part of African-Americans --especially if there has been no other choice up until this presidential election.

Chisolm, Jackson, Sharpton. The monolithicity (not a word, I don't think) of the black vote never existed till about 3 months ago.

It's why the winning Democratic presidential candidates in the past thirty years have all had Southern accents.

That's why I supported Edwards in 2004, and, once Dodd dropped out, this year. Southern accent + smiles a lot = electoral gold! Fortunately, Obama's still up like 8 points on McCain. (And presidential elections are infrequent and unique enough that iron laws of candidate characteristics are tough to draw up).

I just don't think that the evidence suggests that African-Americans have been color-blind in electoral contests up until now. The fact that many districts are gerrymandered by race flies in the face of that argument.

In the past 150 years, about 5 black people have been elected to statewide offices.

So, while I pointed out in my previous post that there may well be some desire among blacks to elect a fellow black at the local level, at the state- (and nation-) wide level, only white people have the chance to reject everyone who doesn't share their ethnicity.

Also, I think that you are overgeneralizing as to the critique of Clinton's campaign. I really haven't seen much in the way of arguments that the Clintons are racist. I have seen the argument that the Clintons believe that Obama's electability suffers if he is branded as the black candidate.

That-- not racism-- would account for what Josh Marshall described as the possibility of the Clinton campaign's "intentional[] pursui[t] [of] a strategy of using surrogates to hit Obama with racially-charged language or with charges that while not directly tied to race nonetheless play to stereotypes about black men."

[Please note also that at that link, Marshall argues that the "fairy tale" remark was perfectly innocuous. I agree with that assessment. You have mentioned the "fairy tale" point before. But just because there exist bad arguments against a point of view doesn't mean that there aren't any good arguments.]

There's more in your post that deserves a response, but I am going to bed.

Thanks for your thoughtful post. Please let me know if I've missed anything that you hoped to read a counterpoint about.

My main point is that some degree of Clinton's support-- in my view, a very small amount-- is based on dislike of Obama's blackness. Happily, polls indicate that we need the support of those folks to win in November every bit as much as we need Michael O'Hanlon's vote.

My main point is that some degree of Clinton's support-- in my view, a very small amount-- is based on dislike of Obama's blackness. Happily, polls indicate that we need the support of those folks to win in November every bit as much as we need Michael O'Hanlon's vote.

...in this, you and I fully agree.

Thanks for your response, Elvis.

"there is no such community as 'white people'."

I'd also like to point out that, despite media attempts to the contrary, there is no such thing as "THE Black Community." Nor is there any such thing as "THE Hispanic Voter." It's that kind of thinking that make Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton the go-to guy for any issue concerning a black person even though there has never (or atleast I've never been invited to) any vote to make either of those men the leader of this so-called "Black Community."

Elvis,
This is a minor point, but you conflating ethnicity with race. Caucasian is a race, but most white people at least would not regard it as an ethnicity. But if you had just said, "only white people have the chance to reject everyone who doesn't share their race," then I'd largely agree, with the exception of Hawaii. New Mexico also has a minority non-Hispanic white population as well.

Polish, Japanese, German, Armenian, etc. - those are ethnicities, and I think this is part of what Stuart was getting at, in that white people identify much more closely with their ethnicity than their race. To be honest, I would be happy to see, all other things being equal, which they never are, a candidate who shares my (predominate) ethnicity, namely, Italian, be elected President. (But I'd wouldn't vote for Giuliani if you put a gun to my head.)

It's that kind of thinking that make Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton the go-to guy for any issue concerning a black person even though there has never (or atleast I've never been invited to) any vote to make either of those men the leader of this so-called "Black Community."

The problem that MSM have is that their digital roledex of Black people is small. Tavis Smiley, Michael Baisden, Oliver Willis who works for MediaMatters, the people at Jack & Jill Politics are unknown entities.

In addition, the prime time cable hosts who control the debate represent only one ethnic group.

Posted by Kind of a Big Deal | May 13, 2008 11:47 PM:

I'd also like to point out that, despite media attempts to the contrary, there is no such thing as "THE Black Community." Nor is there any such thing as "THE Hispanic Voter." It's that kind of thinking that make Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton the go-to guy for any issue concerning a black person even though there has never (or atleast I've never been invited to) any vote to make either of those men the leader of this so-called "Black Community."

Fair enough. So stipulated.

Posted by Malcolm | May 13, 2008 11:59 PM:

Polish, Japanese, German, Armenian, etc. - those are ethnicities, and I think this is part of what Stuart was getting at, in that white people identify much more closely with their ethnicity than their race.

Malcolm:

Thank you for expressing this point so succinctly, as I am apparently congenitally incapable of doing.

I'd like to follow up my comment on white people and ethnicity with a few more thoughts:

1. Just because white people identify more closely with their ethnicity doesn't preclude them from being prejudiced against blacks. While they might not feel any kind of affinity for a candidate because of a common race, they would regard someone with a different race as being "other."

2. I was writing from the viewpoint of a typical Northerner only a few generations removed from my European roots. I suppose white people whose families have lived in America for centuries, which I believe is more common in the South, may not identify so strongly with their, e.g., English ancestry.

3. I think that African-Americans largely lack this more narrow view of ethnicity because their ancestors were forcibly removed from their homelands and culture, so that most today are probably unaware of which part of Africa from which their ancestors came or what language they spoke. Ironically, Africa is probably the most tribal part of the globe and definitely the most linguistically diverse.

4. Which aspect of ones race/ethnicity that one is more conscious of is also situational. For example, I have lived and traveled in Asia for a number of years, so most of the time I am the only non-Asian in a group or at a given location. Thus, when I see a non-Asian person, white or black, there's an immediate identification, a recognition of someone with whom I have something in common. Moreover, I am aware that I am being judged by the actions and behavior of other foreigners.

Rose,
I agree that Clinton does not necessarily have to make the case that Obama is unelectable because of his race, just that he is unelectable period. (Just saying that she is more electable won't cut it at this point with the supers.) But her unfortunate comment about "hard-working white people" certainly does seem to be bringing his race into it. Since then she has corrected her slip-up and now only talks about Catholic, Hispanic, elderly, and rural/blue-collar voters.

In all this how come no one asks the other question. 90% of Blacks vote for Obama because they see him as the Black candidate. Why aren't Blacks accused of racism in that context. Black candidates like Sharpton have played this card time and again and have not been excoriated for it.

While racism among Whites is alive and well not everyone who voted for Clinton is a racist.
I am white; I have and will again will vote for Obama. My wife is a Hillary supporter.She will vote for the nominee in the second round. Does her voting for Clinton recently make her a racist?

All -

Excellent thread - many inbtereting insights.

My thoughts:

- Old fashioned racism is still around, but is less common than Sharpton would have you believe. (He depends on it for job security.) Racism is found mostly among uneducated low-income whites who need someone else to look down on. It has limited effect on elections outside of certain isolated rural communities.

- While technically racist, it is difficult to fault blacks for supporting a black candidate for an office that has never been held by a black. There's a lot of pride involved, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I have less sympathy for those who seem to feel that an office that has long been held by blacks must continue to be held by blacks, just because the constituancy is majority black (e.g. - mayor of Washington). That is racism, and would be soundly condemned if the races were reversed.

- Contrary to the beliefs of some, occasionally disagreeing with the positions of the Congressional Black Caucus does not make one a racist.

- Finally, while it pains me to say something positive about Bill Clinton, I think it is patently unfair to call him a racist. He has done a lot for the black community, and really seems to care about the cause of racial equality. Call him a philanderer instead.

Robert Sullivan,
One thing that confuses me is that Democratic candidates got 90% of the African-American vote in most recent General Elections.

During his presidential run, Al Sharpton (your personal boogeyman) got bulldozed by multiple Caucasian candidates who received more votes in the African-American community, even in his own NYC.

Al Gore trounced Bill Bradley in the African-American community. African-Americans were not called "technically" racist following any of the above votes. Why is Sen Clinton's predicament different from Al Sharpton and Bill Bradley with regards to African-American voters?

The Clintons have been called out for race-baiting. The storm will die down once the Clinton campaign winds down. African-American voters may actually accept Clinton as VP more readily than Progressive Whites. The AA community is very forgiving. We can forgive Rev Wright and Hillary Clinton.

The CBC has approximately 50% of it's members supporting Sen Clinton and 50% supporting Senator Obama. Therefore 90% of the AA voters disagree with 50% of the CBC. Perhaps when Robert Sullivan mentions Al Sharpton, who is not in Congress, prior to adressing issues you have with individual members of the CBC, a bias is telegraphed that goes far beyond isolated Congresspersons.

Lastly, regarding racism and education, there is a alternate point of view. If we look at the juvenile justice system in many cities, African-American and Hispanic offenders tend to receive harsher sentences for similar that have been committed by Whites. Medical therapy given to African-Americans tends to be of a slightly lower quality than that administered to Whites for a series of life-threatening illnesses.

The individuals administering the juvenile justice system and directing medical care are not the uneducated. There is an institutional racial bias that continues to exist in the US

On re-reading stuff here, I don't think we actually disagree, Stuart.

I think you're right that whites don't generally consider themselves white, rather some more specific ethnicity. I also agree that there's a common feeling among all people to support "one of their own."

However, in the context of the Clinton-Obama race, I think that whiteness is a factor-- or at least, the belief among some whites that Obama represents the "other" is a factor. Your Eskimo-black hypothetical is plausible, but inapplicable to this primary. We are seeing some white voters-- perhaps enough to swing small, rural, low-income states like WV and KY-- who would simply never vote for a black candidate. No other ethnicity (or race, if ethnicity isn't the right term to describe whiteness) is able to take that position. Every black voter has voted for some white guy for something at some point.

rmrd0000 -

Thank you for your response. You make some interesting points.

I suspect that so many blacks didn't support Sharpton's Presidential run for the same reason that so many were slow to embrace Obama: they didn't think that he had a chance. In his case, they were probably right. The interesting question, then, is why Obama has managed to attract so much support outside of the black community where Sharpton failed. As I see it, it was because Sharpton was a black candidate. Most Americans do not want a black candidate to win the Presidency, any more than they want a Hispanic candidate, a Jewish candidate, or a Mormon candidate to do so. Fortunately, most Americans have no problem with electing a candidate that happens to be black, Hispanic, Jewish, or Mormon. Obama is clearly a candidate that happens to be (half) black, rather than a black candidate. His supporters (among whom I count myself) are confident that he would represent us all.

No, Sharpton is not "my personal boogyman". Rather than scary, I find him to be a bit sad. He has made a career out of protesting racism, whether real, or imagined, or contrived. He can't afford to pass up anything, because his status depends on convincing us that racism is everywhere. He's caught in the dilemma facing any activist who has become so involved that his fame and fortune depend on perpetuation of the perceived problem. If racism goes away, he's out of a job.

Finally, I did not mean to criticize the CBC. My complaint was against those that equate opposition to something that the CBC supports - affirmative action, for example - to racism.

"But her unfortunate comment about "hard-working white people" certainly does seem to be bringing his race into it. Since then she has corrected her slip-up and now only talks about Catholic, Hispanic, elderly, and rural/blue-collar voters." - Malcolm, there are African-American Catholics, elderly, and rural/blue-collar voters. I never just talk about working-class voters in relation to the Clinton-Obama campaign; that would be inaccurate. Most of us on Swampland do the same, as does KT in her "Obama's white-guy challenge" post. So I actually think Clinton is at a point where she has the choice to either be PC or appear to be PC. She's running for President so of course she choose the latter! Personally, I'm with Donna Brazile on this. But "white" has become a four letter word, even in contexts where its use is necessary in order for a comment not to be racist.

"Racism is found mostly among uneducated low-income whites who need someone else to look down on." - Robert Sullivan, after this election, I am now starting to wonder if classism is the strongest prejudice. African-Americans are vastly underrepresented in law firms, corporations, universities, and the media. Racism is everywhere. Law partners may not throw bricks through Obama's campaign offices, but there is a very good chance that they won't be as quick to promote an African-American lawyer as a white lawyer. Subtle prejudice is still real. And of course it's consequences - I believe African-Americans are less than 2% of all law partners - are not subtle.

"Al Gore trounced Bill Bradley in the African-American community. African-Americans were not called "technically" racist following any of the above votes. Why is Sen Clinton's predicament different from Al Sharpton and Bill Bradley with regards to African-American voters?" - rmrd0000, first I agree with your larger point. But I believe the thinking behind this is that this election is much closer than the Gore-Bradley election. So African-Americans are voting very differently from the general Democratic population. I don't think this is "technically" racist of course. I'm sure that if Clinton and Obama were both white men, the demographic results would be less polarized, but Obama's strong support among African-Americans and Clinton's solid support among women is not indicative of technical racism and sexism. Yes, Obama played the gender card and Clinton played the race card, and that may have further polarized the electorate. But I believe that most of what's going on here is people being excited to support historic candidates.

Robert Sullivan

Thanks for the response. Points taken

Rose -

You are of course correct that blacks are underrepresented in many professions, but I don't think that this is necessarily due to racism in hiring. For example, I can tell you that blacks with degrees in the sciences or engineering from reputable universities are very actively sought by many employers. Unfortunately, there just aren't enough to go around. For whtever reason, too many blacks are coming out of our public schools without the background required to pursue advanced degrees. Fix that, and we will go a long way toward achieving economic equality.

On the other hand, you are doubtless correct that race becomes a factor in higher-level promotions. People can be well intentioned, and can be in favor of hiring minorities as a policy, but when it comes to making individual decisions about positions that can not be examined in the aggregate, the "like me" factor clearly comes into play. Psychologists tell us that this is pretty much universal. Unless we want to get into the business of dictating individual promotions within private companies, I'm not sure that this is going to go away until we achieve a truly colorblind society.

Sexism hasn't been eradicated either but is somehow a lot more acceptable in this campaign.

To JaneBecker's point.

This turning out to be a very interesting discussion.

Robert Sullivan:
You and I have had profound disagreements, but I'm very interested in your take on this; your participation is appreciated (at least by me).

...until we achieve a truly colorblind society.

Your assumption is that those involved actually desire a society in which national or local interests trump tribal loyalties.

That's certainly what I believe is in the best interests of our nation, but perhaps not everybody shares that value, even on the Democratic/liberal side of the divide.

Perhaps some people are invested in being "race/ethnicity first" in perpetuity for a variety of reasons.

Maybe we need to sort out whether people actually think of colorblindness with respect to race as a good thing...

Rose:

Your point about law partners interests me, because it's a field I know a little bit about.

It's easy to stand outside of the situation and, if that statistic is true (no idea, but seems about right in the city I lived in when I practiced law around big firms), and say - "[T]his is proof that the lawyers making partnership decisions are racist."

I am not going to deny that there are racist law partners. But the truth on the ground looks more like this:

Affirmative action is ineffective in the legal field, in part because legal education is ruthlessly meritocratic. All of the grading in my first year of law school was anonymous. The teachers had no idea who's test they were grading. And law school is hard.

The consequence being that the effects of poor preparation showed through, and condemned many of the black men and women from poor backgrounds in my class to failure.

Note that my point is about poor preparation and the terrible state of inner-city classrooms, not inate ability. Other black students in my class who were better prepared did very, very well in my law school.

In fact, though, there were few of these folks, at my school, because there is, in fact, enormous competition among law schools for the better minority candidates, and many of them had a choice to go to a better school.

The upshot was a large number of washouts and a smaller number of people, more or less people who could have got into law school and done well without help in the first place, who went on. This fraction is smaller than the fraction of black people in the general population for reasons that law partners arguably have little or no control over.

These people went on pretty good jobs, by and large, due to intensive minority recruitment practices at the big firms.

Note that, when you say law firm "partners," your statistic (probably) is based on large, elite firms. Lawyers by and large are either solos, work for the government, or part of an immense institution called the "big firm."

Big firm life is hard and intensely elitist. The money is good but, frankly, getting ahead in the law at that level requires two things that many of the minority candidates lack. In the first place, they lacked a personal dedication to the law as a vocation that comes from family history in the practice of law. Remember that we are talking about mergers and acquisitions here, not plaintiffs law or civil rights litigation. In the second place, they lacked an interest in socializing with rich people in ways that bring in clients (as well as family connections that enhance your possibilities in this area).

After a few years in the firm, working 80 hours a week and then being expected to play golf at the country club on the weekends, that corporate counsel job starts to look pretty good.

Plus, Rose, you do realize that black folk amount to a good bit less than half of the population? Like, more on the order of %12?

So, be careful looking at that statistic and seeing a partner's committee sizing up an associate for partner and deciding to pass because they don't like black people. It's a little more complicated than that.

Racism? Sure, I imagine there's more than a little bit of the old "I sure like the guy, but he doesn't fit in at the club" sort of prejudice. I'd call it classism as much as racism, but sure, whatever. My experience, though, is that law firm partners want minority partners desperately, they just can't find enough candidates who actually want to partner with them.

So, I agree with Robert, to that certain extent.

My bride is going to commencement today for NYU law --at Yankee Stadium.

My experience with her time at a top 5 law university in the field of corporate (& securities, etc, etc) law and with corporate m & a-type recruitment tends to highly support pme's contentions and conjectures.

Congrats to her, great school. I wish her luck in her practice, wherever she's heading next. If she's going into big law, though, I hope you don't expect to see much of her for the next decade or so : )

I hope you don't expect to see much of her for the next decade or so...

LOL

We're both insane.

Stuart –

Sorry about the slow response.

Thank you. Your insightful posts on this thread – particularly the one from 8:54 last evening - are what led me to comment.

To me, race relations are the single most important issue facing the country today. American history reads like a classic Greek tragedy. The founding fathers (and mothers, for Jane) did so many things right – but they had a tragic flaw. They lacked the will to confront slavery – an institution impossible to rationally reconcile with the other aspects of their enlightened philosophy. In true tragic form, that flaw has returned to haunt us. We finally rejected slavery, but that was the easy part. Integrating the slaves and their descendants into the society that had previously enslaved them has proven to be at least as difficult. We’ve made progress. Most blacks today live lives not all that much different from their white counterparts. Unfortunately, the rise and fall of urban industrialism left us with economically depressed cores in many of our major cities, and a substantial fraction of our black populations seems to be trapped there. This urban blight drives almost every domestic problem that the country faces: health care, crime, unemployment.

So how do we fix it? As I see it, we begin by accepting that, although the problem can be traced back to slavery, it is no longer a “black” problem. It is an inner city problem. It has no more to do with blacks that have “made it” than it does with any other ethnic group. (Yes, yes, I’m sure all blacks experience occasional slow service at a restaurant. We can argue over how often such things occur or how much it matters, but I think we can all agree that it pales in significance to our inner city problems.)

Next, we look for ways to break the destructive social cycles. We implement job training programs on a massive scale. We introduce early childhood education to mitigate the effects of children having children. We pour money into the schools, enough to attract good teachers. We make the streets safe, no matter how much it costs. We start treating drug addiction as a medical problem rather than as a crime.

It will be expensive. How do we sell it to the general public? First, you eliminate race from the solution. Don’t target black poverty, target inner city poverty. The direct beneficiaries will be mostly black, but race-neutral programs would be much easier to sell. Second, quit blaming the problem on racism. You can blame the aftereffects of slavery, but whatever racism survives today is not responsible for teenage pregnancies, fatherless children, and a culture that scorns education. Obama nailed it – whites resent being blamed for things that they see as not their fault, and if they resent your message, they’re not going to pay for your programs. Take race out of the picture. We have some pockets of extreme poverty, and we need to help.

Will we ever achieve a colorblind society? Do we even want one? Probably not. Variety is the spice of life. What I would like to see is a society in which blacks are not defined primarily by their racial identity. I’m Irish (in part, anyway). I’m proud of being Irish. I like Irish music and Guinness. However, I do not live in an Irish neighborhood. I do not associate exclusively with Irishmen. And I do not automatically take the side of an Irishman in a dispute with a non-Irishman. I condemn the centuries that the Irish were oppressed and exploited by the British; I do not blame contemporary Englishmen.

It would be a sad mistake to integrate to the point of eliminating black culture. It’s given us too much. I’m not a fan of rap, but I love music, and almost every form of American musical innovation has come from black culture.

Sorry – I’ve started to ramble. Your thoughts?

Well, I still think that racism helps him, because most people don't be racists, and yet have a lot of stereotypes, and if Obama doesn't give them something legit to dislike him for, then people are stuck feeling guilty.

I don't think they feel "ashamed" because they're not meeting the community standard; I think most of the racists we still see are guilty of stereotyping and ignorance, not guilty of hatred or negative intention.

If I'm right about that, then in the privacy of the voting booth, they're simply more likely to do the "right thing." Or simply to attempt to declare victory over their own inner struggle with the issue.

I think it's a rare case where people's intentionality is a lot more important than their typical behavior pattern.

Stuart -

I just realized that I didn't address your last point: "Maybe we need to sort out whether people actually think of colorblindness with respect to race as a good thing..."

I'm an optimist at heart. I think that most people recognize that "tribalism" is not conducive to a well-functioning society. I agree that some people seem to want to exploit differences for their own gain. That's probably inevitable.

stuart, congratulations to your wife!

"Plus, Rose, you do realize that black folk amount to a good bit less than half of the population? Like, more on the order of %12?" - pme, I was just pointing that out to someone on another thread...

You make a lot of really good points. I think rmrd0000 is right at a macro level when he talks about institutional racism - such as in the public education system - and how that reflects racism among higher-income whites. Poorer white people are not the ones allocating educational resources, and tolerating the sickening educational inequalities.

I have very little knowledge of the legal world, and virtually no knowledge of large legal firms, but in my own area of business I have seen a lot of racism. The fact that success in law - especially in law school - can largely be determined by objective measures probably helps reduce racism in the field; subjectivity is often accompanied by prejudice. Racism may play a bigger role in fields like classical music, politics, and the media.

In addition, on other threads I've criticized the discrepancy between the attention focused on the prejudices of poorer and richer white men, and in this respect the skewed demographics of large law firms - even if they are not the product of racism (or sexism) within the legal profession - may impact the attitudes of white men in the legal professions to racial and gender prejudices at a societal level. I'm sure you are right that direct racism plays only a small role in the scarcity of African-Americans in large law firms, but white men clearly benefit significantly from the status quo. And I'm definitely not saying that there is some big conspiracy among white male law partners to elect John McCain so that they can hold on to their good jobs! It just seems unfair and inaccurate to only talk about prejudice among poor white men, when they contribute to and benefit from the status quo much less than their richer counterparts.

The bottom line is that higher income white men often benefit from racism and sexism, even when they are not prejudiced themselves. So if we're all going to spend a lot time talking about how Appalachian whites are racist because they are not voting for Obama, we should hold higher income whites to the same standard, and talk about how statistically many higher income white men voting for Obama benefit more from sexism than racism. (women are less under-represented than African-Americans among law firm partners, for example, but because they make up a bigger proportion of the total population, the percentage of white men among law partners would drop more as a result of women being proportionally represented than African-Americans)

If we're going to have this conversation, we should get it right. And thanks for sharing your perspective and giving such useful information, which has really helped me in my own efforts to get it right.

Rose -

I was under the impression that most lawyers' organizations - particularly the trial lawyers -generally support Democrats. They can't possibly be racists.

Robert Sullivan

I have posed a question before, "How will White people know when racism has ended? What wchange will you undergo personally that will verify that racism has ended?

I am not trying to short circuit your discussion which should be interesting. The cynical side of me notes that we were "colorblind" during the days of "I Love Lucy" and "Ozzie and Harriet". Just as States rights means different things to Conservatives and to me, what will change for you in a colorblind society?

The reason that this is important is that if we don't take note of race, there are race-based biases that may persist. In a post above, I indicted that health care disparities persist for African-Americans. Blacks being treated for coronary artery disease are less likely to receive state of the art medical therapy. This disparity persists dispite equal levels of income and insurance. I have mentioned before that the Institute of Medicine has found the problem significant eough to post a sectionon it's website to serve as an educational forum for primary care physicians to identify biases in medical care.

When I mention the medical disparity that occurs despite equal education, insurance, and income, invariably there is a reflexive mode to address problems with poor African-Americans. I agree that being poor is a major barrier to success be it Black, Hispanic, Caucasian, Asian, American Indian, etc. As John Edwards pointed out is a major challenge for the country. But problems persist dispite good income.

Call me too focused on race, but I see some things being swept under the rug in a "colorblind" society. Health care delivery could easily be one of those issues. For those not on the receiving end of substandard care it makes no difference. For those at risk of reeciving substandard care, it could be life-threatening because you are unaware that the problem exists.

rmrd0000 -

I agree that the medical disparity is disturbing. I find it particularly so when I consider that most doctors that I have met have seemed decent sorts - not at all the people that one would expect to deliberately do that. To me, that suggests the possibility of an unconscious bias, which in some ways is even more disturbing. Making them aware of the discrepancy is probably the best course of action.

Earlier you also mentioned disparities in the legal system, which should also be corrected. I think Congress is currently working on fixing the sentencing guidelines that treat crack cocaine so much more harshly than powdered cocaine, which will help. I will point out, however, that sentencing inequities are much larger between genders than between races, and no one seems to be particularly excited about that injustice.

Robert,

Not just trial lawyers - lawyers in general trend center/left, very broadly defined, along with their social class. Take a look at your average bar journal.

I take your second sentence as an attempt at humor, or I'm confused.

Rose,

The example of women in law firms is extremely interesting, because they make up substantially more than half of the graduates of law school, and they are heavily recruited by law firms. So the question becomes, how much is the fact of their underrepresentation in partnerships a product of (a) historic disparities among senior partners skewing the overall statistic; (b) reproduction and child care; (c) plain old sexism. My sense, though, is that women are doing fairly well, all other things being equal.

That aside, my belief is that these disparities are really about class, first and foremost. Race and gender issues are real, but they can be manipulated in ways that help the people in power keep our eyes off the money.

At the risk of starting rants, or descending into one of my own:

The schools don't get fixed for a number of reasons, *none* of which has anything to do with racism, as I understand it, in my opinion. We dumped enormous amounts of money into social programs, of all sorts, for years. We still do. We could spend more. But spending money on education won't create real job opportunities for the vast majority of the underclass, white or black. So why go to school, act right, etc.? So you get more underclass.

The elites have an enormous investment in perpetuating the underclass as a source or screen on which to project mythology, fantasies about sexuality and violence, etc. Much of popular entertainment is premised on this, as is the bohemian stage that many elite young men and women pass through on their way to better opportunities. Pretending that this is all about race instead of (mostly) some people having money and opportunities and some not so much helps justify it to the elites (it's all the fault of those old racist white guys who work at the bank, ie., dad) at the same time as it helps create the cultural circumstances that perpetuate it.

I firmly believe that both "liberals" and "conservatives" are complicit in this, and that very little of it is conscious on anyone's part. It's about systematic incentives.

rmrd0000, I absolutely agree.

And it's important to look at things from a historical perspective. Segregation ended less than 50 years, which is a minute in the sweep of history. John McCain may be the next President, and he was a grown man when legalized segregation ended. He undoubtedly saw whites only signs in public places. Barack Obama was born before the Civil Rights act. Hillary Clinton's father was openly racist. How could racism have vanished so quickly? And why would we think it has when there is still so much evidence of its existence? Racism isn't going to vanish in a couple of generations after the end of its legalized form.

This argument also applies to sexism. My grandparents were born before women had the right to vote. And I'm young. Hillary Clinton was a young woman, John McCain was well in his thirties, and Barack Obama was an adolescent during the height of the women's movement, when news broadcasters, such as Walter Cronkite, were openly contemptuous of feminists.

Robert Sullivan, actually I've found that Doctors can be pretty open about their sexism and racism. Quite amazingly open, compared to other professions. (I'm not sure why that is, but it's a good subject for a study) Of course they may not see their behavior as racist or sexist, but as a patient or a patient's family member, it can be very obvious.

pme, I would just point out that "(b) reproduction and child care" is at least to a large extent the product of societal sexism, including in the unequal divisions of child care. I know some people make the argument that women are inherently more interested in child care than men, but I think we can all agree that the current gender division of child raising labor is absurd and indicative of sexism.

"My sense, though, is that women are doing fairly well, all other things being equal." - But of course "fairly well" isn't good enough.

Rose

Thanks for your post. I do think there will have to be a large onging dialogue about gender and race before we really become color and gender blind.

As flimsy as he concept of race may be (less than 1/10 of 1% of the genetic code) the social implications are enormous.

In the area of health care, it is important to have studies done that do look at people with heart attacks, for example, and what treatment they received based on race. Most data shows that angioplasty, stents and bypass are less likely to be offered to educated and insured African-Americans than to Whites with a similar degrre of disease.

Even if we set an arbitrary value for the percentage of people admitted to hospital with heart attacks who should be treated a certain way, we could overlook substandard treatment ia selected populatin.

Lets say we say a national goal is for 85% of patients with heart attacks to have their blocked vessels opened with stents or replaced with bypass. If 80 of a hospital's patients are White and 20% are Black, we could see the following:

Of 100 heart attack patients, 80 White and 20 Black

All 80 White patients got stents or bypass, but only 5 of the 20 African-American patients got stents or bypass

A total of 85 (85%, 80 Whites + 5 Blacks) of all patients were properly treated, but the distribution was 100% of White heart attack patients and only 5/20 or 25% of African-Americans were properly treated.

This is important information that would be missed in a colorblind situation. Knowing what treatment women receive for various medical conditions is also important. For years many large trials of surgical or drug therapies had only a small number of women.

Realizing that women may respond to therapies differently than men has resulted in vastly different designs of medical trials to include enough women to be able to detect these differences.

Race will remain important for a long time.

Rose

I agree, on both counts. But:

I separated reproduction out because it's a distinct issue for some people who, as you suggest, see a biological imperative at work here apart from or in addition to sexism. But also because it's so stark and fundamental and issue in law firm retention of women. Big law firm expectations don't just require you to rely on others for child care, they make it difficult to be a parent in any meaningful way at all. I'm talking about ten hour days as the norm, with an expectation that you be available into the small hours of the morning without any warning. Lot's of talk about making the firm a place where you can have a family, but work always, always, always comes first.

So, yes. Absolutely. But how to fix it? A sex biased allocation of child care responsibilities has made it possible, along with, perhaps, gendered differences in how much time people want to spend with their kids. But it's perpetuated by the billable hour, and the bottom line. People have to meet the billable requirements to keep the profits per partner up, and if more boys than girls are willing to do that, too bad.

From, of course, the partners' perspectives. I think the world would be a better place without big law firms, but that's a separate issue. What do we have in this specific instance? Another example of people leveraging inequities to make money. That doesn't mean they're invested in the inequity itself, except indirectly - they just want the money, and they honestly don't care who takes care of their associates' kids.

I meant ten hour days as a bare minimum.

pme: "I take your second sentence as an attempt at humor, or I'm confused."

Yes, it was an attempt at humor...and evidently not a particularly good one.

Good posts, by the way.

Thanks, back atcha.

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD image(*.bin,*.cue), so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4

بلوتوث - -
مقاطع بلوتوث - -
يوتيوب - -
مقاطع يوتيوب - -
فديو يوتيوب - -
فيديو يوتيوب - -
افلام - -
موقع يوتيوب - -
youtube.com - -
يوتيوب عربي - -
منتديات - -
مسنجر - -
مدونة - -
العاب بنات - -
العاب باربي - -
Mzaeen’s Weblog - -
يوتيوب - فيديو - بلوتوث - -
تحميل افلام - -
تحميل افلام
تحميل افلام
افلام
افلام
مشاهده افلام
تحميل افلام - مشاهده افلام
افلام - تحميل افلام - مشاهده افلام
مركز تحميل - -
تحميل - -
تحميل صور - -
تحميل ملفات - -
مركز التحميل - -
صور - -
العاب لعب العب - -
لعب - -
العاب - -
لعب العب - -
hguf - -
العب - -
67
-p-2
توبيكات
مسنجر
برامج ماسنجر
توبيكات ملونة
- توبيكات -
توبيك -
صور ماسنجر -
مقالب للماسنجر
- ماسنجر بلس
- صور قلوب ماسنجر
- صور ماسنجر
رومنسيه - صور
للماسنجر -
أحلى توبيكات -
رموز للماسنجر
- توبيكات ملونه
- ثيمات ماسنجر
- توبيكات توبيك
- توبيكات رومنسية
- توبيكات اغاني
- صور بنات
للمسن - صور
بنوتيه - صور
مسنجر -
توبيكات حب -
توبيكات حب وغرام -
توبيكات ملونه
للمسن - صور
بنات للماسنجر 2008 -
توبيكات شعر -
صور مسنجر اطفال
- توبيكات مصرقعة
- زخارف مسنجر
- سكربتات
للماسنجر -
اختصارات للماسنجر -
كلمات للمسن -
توبيكات مسلسل
سنوات الضياع -
صور مهند ونور
للمسن -
توبيكات روعة -
توبيكات رومانسية
ملونة - احلى
توبيكات للمسن -
توبيكات حزينة
- توبيكات
رومانسية ملونه مع صور -
صور قلوب رومانسية
للمسن - صور
بنات للمسن -
صور بنوتات للماسنجركلمات رومنسية عبارات رومانسية للمسن
بنات للمسن msn صور بنات رومنسية للمسن عذاب وحب للمسن توبيكات خيانة صور اليسا للمسنجر
صور فنانين للماسنجر احلى توبيكات رومنسية توبيكات روعة
جميلات العرب
اليسا
صور طبيعية
صور قلوب
صور رومنسية
بلوتوث مزايين
البوم صور مزايين
صور ماسنجر
وسائط
صور حب

صور بنات
صور بنات للمسن
العاب مكياج و ميك اب
العاب ازياء
العاب مغامرات
العاب بنات