Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
Whenever the subject of bigotry gets touched upon in this blog we see certain readers who will not only disagree with the premise that bigotry exists, but who will assert that those who claim it does, are the “real bigots.” Last week on the thread following Mike Appleton’s post “Racism Once Removed” http://jonathanturley.org/2013/08/11/racism-once-removed/ and the week before in my guest blog “Call Me Queer” http://jonathanturley.org/2013/08/03/call-me-queer/ , we saw numerous comments that not only denying that their viewpoint was unbiased, but that our assertions of bigotry were themselves bigoted. While Mike Appleton’s post dealt with racism and mine dealt with homosexual rights, the reactions to presenting these different topics were essentially the same. So much so, that what I saw clearly as racial prejudice even got inserted into what was a thread dealing with homosexual rights. My sense as to why these two disparate issues were conflated by the same people is the subject of this piece, as I will attempt to put the concept of prejudice into the context of the American political scene. For many of us, including me, bigotry is viewed as the stuff of irrational hatred, but I’ve begun to sense that this is too narrow a perspective on this phenomenon. In attempting to counter prejudice, we must first be aware of the dynamics involved and stop looking at prejudice as a monolithic structure.
Those who are the object of prejudice and scorn will no doubt find my distinctions to be of little moment as their lives are so hurt by this hatred. My own sense is that the reaction of Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans to this nation’s history of oppression has been relatively mild when compared to the murderous viciousness with which it has been imposed. It says much for these people of color that they have had the intelligence and restraint to understand they were dealing with an implacable enemy and act accordingly. As someone who views their struggles merely from the outside I know what rage boils up in my gut when I see it and hear about it, quite frankly I don’t know how much restraint I would put on myself if I directly experienced the same oppression. With that caveat let me try to explain my thinking about the distinctions that need to be made when we look at the phenomena of prejudice in this country, from my understanding of it that has developed over a long lifetime and the panoply of changes that have occurred during my existence.The way I see it we can roughly divide those who are prejudiced into two broad categories: the “Haters” and the “Politically Correct.” (PC) The “Haters” are those who have a gut level anger at a specific group that precludes any rational thought in the matter. The “Aryan Nation” and the various “White Power” groups typify this when it comes to people of color and indeed also when it comes to homosexuals. Their feelings about the hated entity are visceral and when they are confronted with their feelings they openly take ownership of them. In one sense we can almost admire their blatant hatred since they at least take ownership of it and so there is no sense of confusion about where they stand. The other sides of this divide which I label the “Politically Correct” are those that justify bigotry in its usage by their political allies by using PC to silence criticism of bigoted statements. They may or may not be bigoted personally, but they protect their political allies by covering for their bigotry and by accusing the accuser. Many conservatives that oppose President Obama for instance are probably not personally prejudiced against black people, but then many of their supporters are and if they are politicians they do not want to alienate their base. This is true too of the Gay rights movement where we have seen many legislators and religious leaders, who have been strong opponents of Gay Rights for political gain, get caught literally with their pants down. Then to just because one is a liberal and/or a progressive does not mean that they are not bigoted. Yet the PC needs of their political positions lead them to act PC publicly.
Many Black people during the Civil Rights Era held the point of view that with racists such as these they could at least understand the boundaries of their relationship to them. They contrasted that with those “liberals” who only secretly harbored their prejudice, while publicly proclaiming their solidarity with the Civil Rights Movement. They correctly pointed out that these “liberals” were fine with imposing corrective actions against bigotry, as long as those actions affected others. It would seem from this dichotomy that the term “Politically Correct” arose and to some extent that is true, yet in my personal experience I think there was a prior step that took place and those particular “liberals” were affected by it.
Sometime in the 1930’s the Communist Party in the United States realized that organizationally they were reaching the limits of their ability to recruit. Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” had to a great degree tempered the impact of the Depression upon those who would be the Party’s normal base, the White working class. It must be understood that although Communists have always talked a good game when it came to the oppression of working people and the underclass, the movement itself was always led by a segment of the intelligentsia. Seriously, who else would slog through the mind numbingly boring and dense works of Karl Marx, but someone with intellectual pretentions? The problem for the Communists in America was that the poor and the working classes were not sold on the ideology, when it was put into opposition with the “American Dream.” The most oppressed therefore most approachable underclass in America from the Communist perspective was “people of color” and so the focus became to recruit them. They had some notable success especially with one of the most multi-talented and impressive human beings of the Twentieth Century Paul Robeson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson . Paul Robeson was a certified genius, who also was an All-American Football Player, great Actor and had an extraordinary voice. He was also an avowed Communist and was for years the Party’s greatest asset in America.
My parents, who were quite liberal, had introduced me to politics at a young age as I was kept home from school to allow me to watch the important parts of Army/McCarthy Hearings, at the age of 10 in 1954. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army-McCarthy_Hearings . Senator Joseph McCarthy persecuted and destroyed the lives of many people for their possible associations with communists. In reality there never was a “Communist Threat” to this country, but it served as enough of a “bogeyman” to help enrich the burgeoning Corporate/Military/Industrial Complex (CMIC). McCarthy himself was a two whiskey bottle a day alcoholic who privately admitted that he used the “communist threat” as a political ploy. This then was the context of my understanding when I first began to meet real Communists in 1967. The Union in NYC’s welfare department where I worked as a caseworker was perhaps the most politically radical union in the country. I somehow became recognized and someone with potential and the various Communist factions tried to recruit me. What turned me off to them, besides their unworkable philosophy, was the concept of “Party Line”. This meant that if you did not spout the current part positions on all issues you were deemed to be “politically incorrect”. This was how I first heard that term and it grated on me then as it does now. The CPUSA “party line” then was “Black is right” and this translated into unquestioned support for any issue where Black people would claim was one of prejudice. There were issues where I opposed the Union’s Black Caucus choice for union offices and found myself being called racist and a “running dog of capitalism” when the reality was I just didn’t like the candidate’s positions on union issues.
The reality is that just because one might be a member of an oppressed minority, doesn’t mean that oppression has made a person noble of character. In truth to support someone merely because they are Black, Latino, Native American, or even in my case Jewish, is actually a bigoted position. There is but one race and that is called Human. To be human is to have flaws, no matter the melanin skin content, or the ethnic background. At the time many liberals were also affected by party line as lampooned in Tom Wolfe’s book “Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers” which detailed the vapidity of “political correctness.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Chic_%26_Mau-Mauing_the_Flak_Catchers My union experiences with Party Lines and political correctness seemed vindicated for me when I read his astute observations.
Among conservative strategists and intellectual this tendency of liberals and progressives hewing to a “part line” approach was instructive since their movement had its own problems. Nixon’s election heralded a conservative comeback into political legitimacy in America. FDR and “New Deal” liberalism had become a dominant force on the American political scene. The “Southern Strategy” was put forth to recapture political dominance and get Nixon elected. While the “Southern Strategy” was aimed to destroy the Democratic Party’s hold on the Southern States, its complementary tactic of the “Silent Majority” was to win the hearts of the White working class throughout the country. The undercurrent of both these tactics and their memes were race based and the message was hidden in code words like crime and violence. While the “Silent Majority” was ostensibly about support for the Viet Nam War, in reality it was about the backlash to “busing,” the burden of which was overwhelmingly placed on the White working classes and not on the intellectuals, liberals and progressives that supported it.
Conservative strategists saw the inherent flaw in liberal/progressive actions and took the term “politically correct” in hand as a means of not only ridiculing liberal/progressive thought, but also to denature the impact of many of their supporters bigotry, by turning PC loose on those who would call racism by its true name. With the election of Barack Obama as President we see how well this strategic twist has worked. One needs only to Google “Rush Limbaugh Quotations” to see how even the media has been so cowed by the use of PC that it countenances a racist mountebank as mainstream. http://newsone.com/16051/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/
While many readers here try to label me as a liberal and progressive, thus to dismiss what I write as merely trying to be politically correct, the fact is that my experience in life had led me to distrust all those who use political “Isms” as their basis of wisdom. Would that life were so simple that we could merely adopt a philosophy with which to deal with the entirety of its vicissitudes. I’ve even written about the “pursuit of political purity” that prevents people of good faith from coalescing because of disagreements on fine points of policy, rather than broad perspectives of human need. http://jonathanturley.org/2012/06/02/the-pursuit-of-political-purity/
As I see it the main thrust of what I call “bigotry denialism” is to use the concept of PC along with reversing the attack onto the attacker. This tactic would have it made impossible to ever call out what is obvious bigotry by labeling the person who does so a bigot for naming bigotry. While from one sense we may be glad that America has evolved to a point where a Black man has become President, the cause of racism in this country seems to have only become stronger. Some conservatives and indeed some liberals have declared the country to be Post-Racial America, but this is far from the case. From my perspective of age I see that racism has come out of the closet again to a greater degree than it has been since the 1970’s. Part of this is due to the universality of the acceptance of the term PC partnered with the tactic of calling the accuser the bigot. Despite the successes of the Gay Rights Movement, the counter revolution has also borrowed these tactics and in some areas homophobia is even growing as a backlash to the success of Homosexuals beginning to obtain their rights as citizens.
At this blog and in my life, I have always worked to oppose bigotry and I will continue to do so until the end. Since I’ve been around here for quite a while I can anticipate the nature of those who will attack my premises in this blog. Rather than turn this into a massive guest blog by use of a pre-emptive strike on the attacks I will let the links below of my own guest blogs do my refutation.
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/08/03/call-me-queer/
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/29/obama-and-the-war-on-drugs-hypocrisy-in-action-2/
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/21/post-racial-america/
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/05/04/you-say-you-want-a-revolution/
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/03/30/the-myth-of-black-freedom-in-the-u-s/
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/16/tea-party-a-phony-movement-mantled-as-legitimate/
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/21/the-authoritarians-a-book-review-and-book/
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/11/26/the-incarceration-of-black-men-in-america/
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
OS,
I won’t dispute your claim…. But, if you follow an equally stupid educator what do you expect….. The Nazi party did quite well with most, if not all….
AY,
Curiously enough, education has a reverse effect on many in the camp we could call “true believers.” It doesn’t matter what the subject matter is, according to researchers, presenting facts and data only results in a more solidified belief system.
Gene,
Thanks. In a way this is very interesting, and the comment above you reference is exactly the kind of red meat data point the University of Kent researchers have found so useful in compiling their analysis.
It’s near impossible to deal with prejudice and bigotry on a rational basis.
They are not intellectually-based. There is no argument that will convince (any number) of the prejudiced and bigoted that their position is faulty. Rather the arguments will entrench them in their positions.
It stems from deep feelings of insecurity.
Any peson that is ‘different’ is a challenge to another person’s world view and comfort zones.
Some people can’t handle that. Their reaction is a desperate urge to reinforce their own ‘reality’. They are the normal. Different is abnormal.
Add in economic pressures -where these different have some impact on a person’s life – and the desperate insecurity finds expression.
Some people can’t abide ‘different’ being in their faces.
For those of us in the one human race, denying our bigotry is a flight of fancy to some degree:
(Wiktionary). I say that because we all tend to be “devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices” and we all tend to be in some degree “partial to one’s own group … and … [in some degree] intolerant of those who differ.”
The issue of being too bigoted is probably an easier issue to honestly deal with.
Plus, the generalization during argumentation warps the conversation, because our bigotry is stronger on some issues than it is on other issues.
I mean, we are more prejudiced about some things than we are about others.
To have and project an aura of not being bigoted in any degree on any issue is probably the easiest bigotry denialism to grasp and analyze.
For instance, honestly contemplate the dynamics that activate when we go thru the feelings and thoughts associated with “my family”, “my religion”, “my race”, “my team”, “my country”, “my school” –as well as– “our family”, “our religion”, “our race”, “our team”, “our country”, and “our school”.
In reality, down in that 98% unconscious within us, various dynamics are automatically flowing through our physical and cultural amygdala, where various energies of some degree of bigotry form.
Then percolate into our conscious mind zone.
In other words, our conscious intellect does not get pure energy, rather, it is given a bill of goods constructed and put on us by our local and larger culture, society, nation, and civilization.
The degrees of our bigotry wax and wane as we experience life, largely out of our personal control.
When we become educated or enlightened, and attempt to work on our bigotry, individually, and as groups, we either strengthen or weaken the inadvisable and unworkable aspects of our bigotry.
When we are honest, we see that keeping our bigotry in the cage is hard work, but that eradicating it totally is called “sainthood” or the like.
Anyway, a fully profitable discussion would probably be about what we should be prejudiced against as well as being prejudiced for.
I would suggest that our constitution gives useful guidance when it counsels us to be fair regarding religion, age, race, gender, political affiliation, nationality of origin, and the like.
“GO TEAM!”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/08/13/standing-up-to-anti-gay-animus-from-the-pulpit/ I think it is important to stand up to bigotry regardless of where it comes from. Sometimes we see bigotry wrapped in constitutionalism while at other times it comes straight from the pulpit.
A good post but your dominant theme is that whites are the racist people. I am 100% confident some whites are racist. I am also 100% confident that some blacks are racist. Where is this reported? Every day we hear about the racist tea party, the racist birthers, the racist republicans. Heck even in this blog we have the accusation that birthers are racist and I’m sure before the day is out there will be many posts about the racist tea party people and racist republicans.
In the last election it is reported that 93% of blacks voted for Obama. I don’t have the % handy for white voters but I am pretty sure it wasn’t anything close to 93% supporting the white guy whatever his name was. So was black racism a factor in their voting patterns?
You know Mike… Education is the key…. The probability of someone being open to new ideal is through education.. I think
Forcing folks to accept what hey culturally have learned to reject leads to pretty much what we have today…. Recalling Elaine posting of Carlin yesterday…. Reminds me that there are some venues where some words are acceptable…. Whereas in others they’d be treated as inciting a riot…. Or hate speech…. Which, in my mind is just as unacceptable as a bigot….
This is an excellent post and point… Racism does exist…. Prejudices do exist…. Welcome to the real world….. If you think they do…. You are in denial… Corporate welfare exist…. Now, how do you suppose we change these…. There is No perfect society… The best way I’ve found is ignore the fools…don’t deny they exist…
OS,
Case in point, above.
So it is certain that bigotry exists……… and ….. anyone who talks about people using the labels black , white , mexican , etc…….. is racist and somewhat of a fool. I snort every time I see Obama described as a black man.
There is nothing correct, politically or otherwise, when you see the sign posted which says: No Dogs Allowed.
Definitely there has been a resurgence of racism since Obama’s election. What I find amusing is that so many whites assume Obama is preferenceing the interests of blacks when in fact he is more hostile to black interests than any other president of recent time. Obama bends over backwards like a contortionist to convince whites that he is not favouring blacks but whites simply don’t see it.
Also Obama has brown skin but he is not African American. His mother and grandmother who brought him up are white and there is suspicion that both were CIA no official cover operatives. His experience and interests are those of an elite white and he has shown himself to be a loyal servant of the kleptoplutocratic elite, the 1%.
My advice to black people would be to ditch their support for Obama, they have been cheated and practically any other colour of politician would be better for them, white green or purple with yellow spots.
Uh oh, Mike, you’re in for it now. A very thoughtful post. We’ll see if the responses are equally measured. I have more to add, but it’s too late to start, so I’ll get on this tomorrow.
Raff,
While racism is clearly common amongst the birthers, it isn’t universal. The one trait which all birthers must have is not racism but bigotry. You cannot be a birther which being prejudice against President Obama. After that, you’re free to choose off the menu of stupidity, willful ignorance and dishonesty, or chose the combo platter with a heaping helping of racism on the side.
I’m going to need to think about this some more, but the dynamics Mike describes are clearly in play amongst the birthers. They absolutely love playing the reverse-racism card while being totally oblivious of the many blatantly racist fellow travelers in their midst. Of course, as OS pointed out, this is done primarily with some industrial-strength confirmation biases.
Mike,
Once again, great post. However, I do have an “-ism” which I proudly adhere to: scientific empiricism.
Well, a person who has enough intelligence to write this, has the mental wherewithal to do a little deeper introspection into their own personal motivations. Sometimes, the best way to get a handle on those things is to step back and make an honest assessment of exactly what one is griping about. This is because none of us, on either side, are likely to come right out and admit, “Oh, I am a racist!” or “Oh, I am a race-baiter!” Because, if we were reasonable enough to face up to that, then we probably wouldn’t be making any arguments in the first place. In short, it is the facts that may be of the most use in determining if we are in error.
Sooo, on two of the above threads where I was involved, here is how I saw the facts:
1. In Re: Trayvon Martin, a gangsta wannabe attacked and mugged somebody and got shot in the process;
2. In Re: The Baton Rouge 12 (aka The Dirty Dozen) got busted by the popo for cruising for sex in a public park.
Personally, I do not view No. 1 as “racism in action”, and I do not see No. 2 as “rampant homophobia”, whatever the heck “homophobia is even supposed to be in the first place. What I saw on the threads themselves was a lot of name-calling and chagrin against those who did not see it the way of the respective authors. In short, those who did not buy into the Guilt Trip.
Which is what triggered this particular post, which I view as yet another attempt to try to hang an undeserved bunch of guilt on people who do not feel guilty about not feeling guilty.
With the gay dudes in the park, that whole enterprise was silly from the get-go, and I think was prompted by an autonomic response to scream “HOMOPHOBIA!” at the top of one’s voice. I mean really, do you see a “fundamental right” to cruise the park for sex??? Get real.
With Trayvon, the issue is a whole lot more serious. This is because the refusal of the Guilt Lobby to accept the results of the jury and go about their business can NOT BE PRACTICALLY ACCOMPLISHED without resorting to “racism” as the basis for the death, or the acquittal or as the basis for SYG laws. In other words, to object to the verdict entails (99.9%) a charge of racism against either George Zimmerman, the jury, and/or the whole state of Florida.
If such a thing were true, then I would say “Damn the Torpedos! Full speed ahead.” Racism is a bad thing, and if it occurs, you oughta say something. But, from my review of the case, there isn’t any rational basis at all for making that claim. The SYG laws disproportionately benefit blacks. GZ seems to be a very racially tolerant person. His nose was broken by Trayvon, and his head bloody from being banged on the concrete. There were witnesses, and even Jeantel said Trayvon probably hit first. Any review of Trayvon reveals him to be a gangsta wannabe, and probable thief.
The jury seemed to struggle with the verdict. Which candidly I would not have, the issue seeming pretty.simple from the outside. Sooo, with that in mind, what was it that triggered all of what I now call the Trayvonazis response??? Is there a tendency in our country for people of leftish persuasions to play the race card? Oh hell yes! At every chance!
Sooo, based on a lack of a factual basis to characterize Trayvons death as racism, and based on a tendency of some people to holler RACISM, I made my decision about those people- – – they’re race-baiters either from the desire for self-aggrandizement, or from force of habit. So that is what I said.
Now, it gets more interesting. Because what was the response to my gentle responses. I was called a racist, and a bigot, and so was every body else who had similar beliefs. Which means that there was about ZERO Response to the factual underpinnings. This reinforces my initial assessment of the situation.
My suggestion would be for those who agree with this post to consider whether there is such a thing a Race Baiting Denialism, and if so, are they guilty of it. Because a story like that might actually go a long way toward making things better. And lead to a whole lot less name calling.
IMHO.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Thought provoking.
OS,
Bingo.
Excellent job, Mike. Prejudice and bigotry are a much larger problem than they appear and a tool used by political purists for division. Divide and conquer is a tactic as old as the hills. The only way to fight that tool is to take it away from them, the first step being a critical eye. And again the wisdom of Marcus Aurelius holds. “This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what its causal nature [or form]? And what is it doing in the world? And how long does it subsist?” To fight a thing, one must understand what it is in its totality.
Mike,
As you know, I have been researching the psychology of the true believer, prejudice and conspiracy theorists. All these folks have some characteristics in common. The main thing is the existence of contradictory beliefs at the same time. Paula Deen’s comments are a good example. When her racism is pointed out, she has trouble wrapping her mind around the cognitive dissonance between her behavior and her feelings.
On this blog we have had numerous commenters talk about “loving” homosexuals, but in the next sentence wish to deny their human rights and humanity itself, and engage in remarkable feats of logical gymnastics to rationalize it when the lie is pointed out. As Dr. Leon Festinger pointed out in his 1950s social psychology research, they simply lie to each other and to themselves. The President for example. He is an “idiot” from Kenya, but has a Harvard law degree. This coming from people who would have trouble filling out an application to Harvard, much less graduate from one of their programs.
Graduate students at the University of Kent in England have done pioneering work in studying this phenomenon. Amazingly, they are using blog comments as their laboratory. Long threads in stories such as the ones referred to in your story, are a gold mine of data.
Great topic tonight Mike. I do agree that racism has had a resurgence since the election of Barack Obama. I think there are some that were shocked that a black man could actually win the White House. How else can you explain the birthers and their unproven and wild claims?