In recognition of Obama's ginormous victory in Oregon (as in Portland, Oregon), I dusted off the ol' college diploma last night. I had already been wearing flip flops all day in anticipation (closest thing I had to Birkenstocks). This morning, I treated myself to a triple-grande soy sugar-free mocha latte, cranked up the NPR and relished in my lack of hatred of Black people. When in Rome...
Of course, Hillary won by 35 points in Kentucky, but, not unlike many of the southern states, she was boosted to victory by good old fashioned racism. To look at that after typing it, my first reaction is that it seems ridiculous and bitter to say that, or least unfair. Then I remember the exit poll statistics and I realize it's very sadly true. Twenty-one percent of voters in the state admitted that race was a factor in their voting. Of that 21%, 9 out of 10 people voted for Clinton. And that 21% are just the people that admitted to voting based on race. Who knows what that number jumps to if you include the more closeted bigots and ignoramai (plural for "ignoramus"). I don't think it's a stretch to connect that to racism.
How sad is this? It's 2008 for the love of God. I guess it's not really shocking to see such blatant racism, but it is really disappointing.
Hillbilly Bob shouts from the back, "Hey, what about the overwhelming number of Blacks in South Carolina admittedly voting for Obama based on race? That's racism too! We're even!"
I think that's equally foolish, but a far cry from racism. There is a difference between voting against someone because they are Black and voting for them because they are Black. I know many people feel there is absolutely no difference between the two and that to say that constitutes "reverse racism," one of my least favorite phrases. To that, I would just say there is only no difference if we live in a vacuum. But we obviously don't live in a vaccum; we live on top of a landfill of hundreds of years of outright slavery and institutionalized oppression of African-Americans. To pretend that just because the institutionalized aspect of racism is officially gone (if somebody says "affirmative action," I smack them in the mouth), that racism as a whole is defeated is at the very least unrealistically optimistic if not naive and sheltered.
Okay, I've just spent the last ten minutes arguing with and lecturing to...myself. Yeah, time to get off the soapbox, I think. The Lakers won so why am I getting myself all worked up? Sorry about that.
Just one more thing though...I also find it despicable that Hillary seems to embrace the support of these people. I realize no politician is going to ask that votes in their favor be thrown out, but I was shocked (though I shouldn't have been) to see Clinton using voters' racism as an argument why the Black candidate shouldn't be the nominee. As if the ignoramai should be rewarded for their dim view! Great leadership, Hill! Unfuckinbelievable.
To be fair, I am going around the way a bit in interpreting her quote. She didn't refer to the racially-motivated voters exactly. No, she only referenced "hard-working white Americans who had not completed college." However, you can bet that Hillary knows that the voting records of both demographics are not aligned by coincidence.
Wouldn't it be great though, to see a candidate throw out votes based on racism? I doubt it's democratically be possible (unless you're a Florida Republican), but how refreshing would it be to see a candidate stand up and, with so much personally at stake for them, say "I don't want to win that way. A vote for me based on racism is not a vote I want in my box. Strike them from the record." Politics like that can only exist in movies, I guess.
13 comments:
How do you account that 90+% of the black voters in the Dem primary vote for Obama? Do you think that race plays any part of it? If race does play apart in such a large percentage of blacks voting for Obama (it's hard to argue any differently), do you think Obama should not count the black vote?
Strike that last comment; just read the paragraph where you talk about it. I'm just not sure voting for someone because of their race is 'good' racism. The white people of Kentucky can say that they're just voting "for" the white person, not "against" the black person.
Yes, I suppose they could say that, but I don't imagine anyone would or should believe them. The world is not a court room, counselor.
"I'm just not sure voting for someone because of their race is 'good' racism."
It seems you might be putting words in my mouth here. I didn't say that Blacks voting for a Black candidate is "good racism," I said it wasn't racism at all. I think this brings up an important distinction. It seems to me that many people, usually Whites, confuse decisions based on race with racism. Racism is defined as "the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others" or "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." Clearly, a Black man voting for a Black candidate in the interest of pride and advancement for his race does not fit this definition. So, like I said, I agree that casting a vote for the leader of our country because it would be great to see a Black man in the office is foolish and short-sighted, it's not racist. Same deal with Hillary and gender. A person voting for Hillary because she's a woman is lame, but not sexist, but someone voting against her because she's a woman is both.
I think I understand where you are coming from, but I respectfully disagree with your definition of racism or sexism. Here is my definition of racism or sexism:
Distinctions based on race or sex.
Motivation is irrelevant.
That's why I think affirmative action is racist and probably why you do not. In the affirmative action context, the government/certain businesses allows distinctions based on race. Now they do it for what courts call, at least in the government context, "compelling reasons", but it's still racism nonetheless, because it is a distinction based on race. It's merely justified racism (or in the gender context, if you had a program designed to help women it would be justified sexism). Or to take it out of the hot button race/sex arena, not allowing people under 16 or 18 to have drivers licenses is "ageism". Why? Because we are making a distinction based on age. It may be justified, but it is a distinction based on age, and therefore ageism.
And I don't think I'm parsing words here; what you are talking about is racism. It may be justified in your mind, but it is still a distinction made on race. I think having a qualified president who happens to be black would be wonderful, but I would never vote for that candidate because he was in fact black. That's racism.
Now, what I think is even worse (and MORE racist), is saying to one race: You cannot engage in racism but saying to another race 'go ahead, you deserve it' is inherently racist. 'You can vote on the pride and advancement of your race, but we racists will refuse to engage is such deplorable activity.' As you can hopefully see, it is also really condescending to the race that is allowed to engage in that. Why? Because you are saying that you have higher expectations for white people simply because of the color of their skin.
I'm glad to see you don't like Hillary's supporters engaging in racism, but when Obama supporters stop saying that it's okay for blacks to do the same thing, THEN we'll start moving beyond the identity politics that is so freaking frustrating.
The fundamental difference between us is clearly our interpretation of "racism." In my previous comment, I quoted the dictionary definition of the word which is the one I adhere to. If you want to say it means something else to you personally, that's your right as an American. As such, I can't really argue any of the points you're making because they're all based on your personal interpretation of the word. If you choose to define racism as a distinction based on race, then I can understand why you would disagree with me on all this stuff, but I don't agree with your interpretation of the word.
I'll grant you that your definition is probably more popular, and my definition is based on years of reading legal cases where courts look at whether a policy makes distinctions based on race before ruling if it is permissible or not (almost always, if race is used as a distinction, regardless of motivation, will be impermissible.)
That being said, I still find the argument that some people can make distinctions based on race, even if not traditionally racism, is still disgusting.
Last word freak.
update your blog ya slacker!
i'm between internets! cable guy comes next friday.
That's why you have a job that has internet!
How are you not writing about basketball right now?!
Because it's baseball season, and the Lakers are going to loose.
Umm, you've had internet since Friday...
Post a Comment