How Racism Works

[rikibeth]

courtesy of whiskey_poptart

How racism works

What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review? What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class? What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said “I do” to? What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer measured up to his standards?

What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but acquired them illegally through her charitable organization? What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard? What if Obama were a member of the “Keating 5”? What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?

If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?

This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.

— Kelvin LaFond, Fort Worth

Comments

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Hm. Well, I can't argue that that attitude does show up sometimes. But, when the Man is, in fact, known to be keeping people of one's race, sex, or other minority group down, and even hard-working and capable members of that group find it hard to succeed...surely, you can't deny it's a reasonable suspicion, nu?

I mean, yes, hard work is usually necessary for success, but in our world it's not sufficient.

[ghilledhu.livejournal.com]

It's a reasonable suspicion, yes. But unfortunately many people use it as an excuse not to try at all, or blame *any* failure on the Man even if it was clearly due to a lack of effort - or even something as innocent as another applicant being clearly more qualified.

Also, you get people playing the race card for stuff that has nothing to do with it. Example:

Grocery clerk: I'm sorry, you can't this coupon. It's expired.
Customer: You're denying me my coupon because I'm black/female/short/red-haired/etc.!

You think I'm kidding. I'm not. And this actually causes problems because it muddies up the examples of actual discrimination.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Well, again, I've seen that happen before. I don't know that it's not somewhat understandable, as in, when someone is repeatedly told they aren't good enough, that person tends to stop trying.

I guess I just have to wonder why, it seems, every time the subject comes up of racism (or some other bigotry) resulting in people who face it having a harder time of things, someone, often more than one person, feels it necessary to bring up "victim culture", "false accusations", "reverse discrimination", or the like.

It's almost as if these memes were planted in the public consciousness in order to foil meaningful discourse on bigotry. Not saying you're doing that on purpose, mind you. Just saying, careful about memetic contagion.

[ghilledhu.livejournal.com]

They get brought up because there is reality to them - just as there is reality to the actual discrimination itself. People like to debate, and debate means bringing up both sides of an issue which is very seldom either/or, right/wrong.

Please note that I am not saying discrimination doesn't exist, or that people in discriminated-against groups should just grit their teeth, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and they'll be just fine. All I'm saying is that the victim culture does exist, and it has the unfortunate effect of making people less sympathetic to actual victims of discrimination

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Mmm, sure, there is reality to them. But do they happen often enough to be worth derailing every conversation about the bigotry in question? That's what I'm wondering.

[rikibeth.livejournal.com]

How much have you worked in retail? If you've never done so, your perception will be different from someone who has.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

I used to deliver pizzas for a 24-hour pizza place. At night. To people drunk and sober.

Saw all kinds. I delivered to people of all races, and in my experience, those most likely to throw an entitlement fit were white.

[panzerschrek.livejournal.com]

It is, for three reasons.

1) It is their reality. Why should you expect someone to suspend their disbelief in what they know to accept your arguments? Who should they believe, you or their own experiences that they already know to be real?

2) It is the same thing -- affirmative action is a form of discrimination, as currently practiced. One cannot end discrimination through the employment of discrimination.

3)As a matter of practicality, there is nothing to be gained by nay-saying someone else's experiences. In fact, there is great deal to lose -- tell someone that their life experiences are invalid and somehow don't count and any opportunity to persuade them goes right out the window.

[seaya.livejournal.com]

I think you don't know what affirmative action is. You might think that it's putting unqualified people in positions. That is not what it is. It is first seeing who is qualified by the criteria for the job out of the applicants and then looking for people from underrepresented populations to round out your team in your workplace or your student population.

[panzerschrek.livejournal.com]

You really seem to enjoy putting words in other people mouths, don't you?

Affirmative action was originally the advertising of Federal jobs in "non-traditional" media.

As for the rest, riddle me this? Why do the statistical analysis suggest that affirmative actions effect of pushing less qualified students into higher tier schools actually having the effect of hampering their success, if it is such a good idea, when it actually reduces the number of minority lawyers?

And would you be willing to apply the practice to all areas for life?

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

It is their reality. Why should you expect someone to suspend their disbelief in what they know to accept your arguments? Who should they believe, you or their own experiences that they already know to be real?

They should believe that their experiences only tell part of the story, and do research about the larger reality around them.

It is the same thing -- affirmative action is a form of discrimination, as currently practiced. One cannot end discrimination through the employment of discrimination.

No, this is wrong. And very, very privileged.

As a matter of practicality, there is nothing to be gained by nay-saying someone else's experiences. In fact, there is great deal to lose -- tell someone that their life experiences are invalid and somehow don't count and any opportunity to persuade them goes right out the window.

I'm not saying their experiences are invalid, merely incomplete. And whose experience is truly complete? None of us have experienced everything, nor can we. That's why we do research and inquiry into the larger world, so that we know more than we can directly experience.

[panzerschrek.livejournal.com]

What should I call a system of preferences that discriminates on the basis of race, if not racial discrimination?

For example, on a 100 point scale, the outlawed affirmative action system at the University of Michigan gave African American applicants a 20 point head start, simply for being African American. How is that not racial discrimination? Or are you going to tell me that it was only U of M?

As for being priviledged, you're barking up the wrong tree. Family tree is replete with painters (house, not canvas), barkeeps, a couple nurses, a boat-builder, a military officer -- nothing special. Myself, life has included factory work, Servicemaster and tutoring students to get through University. Been a union guy, a truck driver, a temporary worker, but never unemployed. I've worked for what I have, with no hand-outs or hand-ups, let alone a 20% head-start.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

What should I call a system of preferences that discriminates on the basis of race, if not racial discrimination?

You should first of all call affirmative action what it is, and not "a system of preferences that discriminates on the basis of race".

For example, on a 100 point scale, the outlawed affirmative action system at the University of Michigan gave African American applicants a 20 point head start, simply for being African American. How is that not racial discrimination?

That old dog again? Here, read this article which handily debunks the U of M criteria as "racist against whites" (http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=722).


As for being priviledged, you're barking up the wrong tree. Family tree is replete with painters (house, not canvas), barkeeps, a couple nurses, a boat-builder, a military officer -- nothing special. Myself, life has included factory work, Servicemaster and tutoring students to get through University. Been a union guy, a truck driver, a temporary worker, but never unemployed. I've worked for what I have, with no hand-outs or hand-ups, let alone a 20% head-start.

You're white, aren't you?

That means that you've already been given huge benefits without having to work for them. So have I, I'm also white. It's part of the system. It's not your fault, it's not mine either. But denying our privilege does no good at all.

[seaya.livejournal.com]

So you are saying that Obama has not worked hard?

[panzerschrek.livejournal.com]

He's never had a hard political campaign until now -- but that's just the Chicago way -- clear the field and run all but unopposed. He did that to get his State Senate seat, running out all the competition in Democratic primary, which is the only election that matters in Hyde Park in Chicago. The media ran the favored opponent out of the race, prying into sealed court records, leaving Obama to run a victory lap against Alan Keyes in the election.

His campaign staff, particularly his campaign manager, have an urban focus, which might come back and bite them -- what plays in Chicago and San Francisco does not always play in fly-over country. It should be an interesting election, although hopefully not in the Chinese sense.

[seaya.livejournal.com]

He did not clear the field for himself. The person who ran against him did it all on their own by having a scandal. Whether or not what the person did should have been a scandal, well that is a commentary on society. But the wording of your post implies that Obama engineered it all so he could win. Patently false. He was asked to run by the party, but he did not engineer anything.

The campaign staff of Obama currently are working in various rural areas. So...I fail to see your point?

So, he didn't have a campaign like this before, that I'll concede, but not many have.

[panzerschrek.livejournal.com]

No, he cleared the primary field to become a state senator, Seaya. In Hyde Park, that is the only election that matters.

The media in Chicago went to court to unseal the records of his opponent in the US Senate campaign later. One wonders who suggested they might want to unseal those records, neh? Mayhap I'm suspicous, but it was a mighty convenient turn of events. Ryan didn't have a scandal until the Chicago media decided that they needed to troll through the sealed divorce records, looking for muck.

As for Obama's campaign staff, the one's in charge (Axelrod, etc.) know urban campaigns, but are out at sea at the city limits, as evidenced by his inability to win big states during the primaries even after becoming the presumptive nominee.

My point is that what plays in Hyde Park or Manhatten does not play well in most of the country. The wine and brie set in Hollywood or San Francisco may lap up comments about rural lumpkins bitterly clinging to their religion and their firearms, but Pennsylvania west of the Philadelphia city limits are likely to be unamused. *MICHIGAN* is in play, for chrissakes, despite being one of the blue-est of blue states. This is not evidence of a campaign that understands that the votes in "fly-over" country count, too.