Pages

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Clean & Articulate Racism

UPDATED: I realized after many hours that the end of this post was cut off - it actually disappeared. I'm writing a different ending, since I can't remember everything I wrote, and also to simply write it better.
I don't understand how a comment like this doesn't demonstrate overt racism: (via CWY)
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
The first mainstream African-American who is articulate? Bright? Clean!? What exactly did he expect - a mumbling, stupid, dirty man?

To me, an example like this shows a worse kind of racism than even simple dislike. A person who hates black people simply because they're black is a hateful jerk. A person who - in passive conversation - can show that he expects black people to be mumbling, dirty, and stupid? That's outright disgusting and ignorant.

Interestingly enough, the person who made the comment is himself a Presidential candidate: Senator Joe Biden - the Democrat from Delaware.

I've always felt that this implicit racism was far worse than any other. We have laws protecting people from being discriminated against, and the simple, hateful racism is easier to prosecute. But implicit racism? It can silently destroy people. For example, look at affirmative action: It forced universities and companies to accept (say) black people - not because they were necessarily qualified, but because they were black. It was a nice way of saying, "Hey, we don't think you could actually earn a job here, so we're going to give you one to encourage 'diversity'." How does this encourage diversity? By putting someone into a situation where they're guaranteed to fail, when they couldn't have earned the job with their own skill? And when they could have earned it, we wouldn't need affirmative action [at this point in history].

I've often found the same implicit racism in the most hypocritical of places. Firstly, among Jews: Forget the stupidity of racist beliefs, because obviously it's stupid; it doesn't even make sense in terms of some perceived gain, because racist beliefs only harm Jews, removing a natural ally on many issues, especially in the United States. (Interestingly, I found less racism overall among Jews in Israel, at least in regards to the Ethiopians or blacks in general; there, any race hatred was usually against Sefardim. On the other hand, that little bit of racism actually does result in discrimination.)

Almost more interestingly, though, is in certain areas: New York City, for example. Certain areas in other cities (parts of Cleveland, etc.). Generally, urban areas - ones which contain a high percentage of people who vote Democrat. A brilliant Democrat blogger [not sure if he doesn't want this quoted as being him] I know once agreed with this assessment and noted that where he lives in the Bronx (one of the highest Kerry-voting areas in 2004 in the country) he's heard more racism than anywhere else, much to his surprise. Democrats - who often make a big fuss over race issues - seem to be more racist than Republicans. While Republicans have their Pat Buchanans, their other crazies... those people are not in the mainstream; they are clear fringe players. But the racist Democrats don't even seem to acknowledge or realize that what they believe is completely racist - worse even than those they [properly] mock.

Notice the breakdown of most communities in New York: They are broken down by ethnicity and class. In what is supposed to be the melting pot of culture, you have "black" areas, "Chinese" areas, "Hispanic" areas... The way many of the 'liberal elite' seem to view minorities here is to 'throw money at them to help them build their communities' - as long as they don't come into ours. This also helps protect true 'old boys' networks, as connections are only made with people of the same ethnicity.

I checked the Wiki article on New York City's demographics. It doesn't really break down race by neighborhood within the city (only by borough), but The article does split up a few of the groups and casually notes the neighborhoods they live in. Quotes such as the following are not surprising, either:
Manhattan has a high degree of income disparity, with extreme wealth and pockets of poverty.
Los Angeles actually does list a few neighborhoods when it does the same, noting places such as Leimart Park (91.7% black).

Senator Biden's remarks only demonstrate what seems to be a natural belief among higher-ranking Democrats, or some Democrats in general: Minorities need our help, because they can't do it themselves. An interesting statistic, if I'm recalling correctly: There is but one black Democratic Senator, while there are two Republican Senators. 1/51 = less than 2%; 2/49 = more than 4+%. While this is a terribly small sample, it's interesting to compare it to the makeup of the two parties as a whole. About 2% of those who voted for Bush in 2004 were black; having 2 Senators is slightly more than representative. About 17% of those who voted for Kerry were black [and as a percentage of the Democratic constituency in general, blacks are even higher, as only a low percentage vote] - having just 1 Senator (instead of 8-9) seems to be a terribly unfair rate of representation. We also see a real lack of minorities at the top of the Democratic Party, with the biggest black names in the party (before Obama) being people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and even Charlie Rangel.

Implicit racism is worse than blatant racism in that it pushes minorities down even as it claims to be raising them up. Even as the liberal elite helps out black communities, it holds them away from truly meshing with the communities around them, encouraging black-only cultural stereotypes. The Congressional Black Caucus [solely made up of Democrats] does not allow any non-blacks to join; last year, a House Democrat wished to do so to better help his mostly black constituency, but was rejected [hat tip: BOTW, which made me wish I'd read all my e-mail before writing this piece]. Some liberals encourage calling those blacks who don't follow typical black stereotypes (such as being a Democrat) "Uncle Toms" or "Oreos".

Possibly the worst part of implicit racism among Democratic leadership is that these people make their political decisions based on their own bigoted views. These decisions negatively impact not only the very same people they are meant to help, they negatively impact everyone else who is affected by them indirectly (such as qualified white people who lose out on jobs or university slots). The time has come to fight this implicit racism as well, and the best way of doing so is by voting out or calling for the resignation of those who practice it.
I can't remember how the rest of this post originally went. It was really good, too. Argh. Blogger Beta stinks.

17 comments:

  1. I think your characterization of New York City as a racist city is off the mark.

    For one thing, compare NYC and Los Angelos. If you want to see what a city with real race relation issues looks like, check out LA. New York *is* one of the most diverse cities in the world, and one of the few in which almost any person of any kind can find a community in which they can be accepted.

    You use the segregation of neighborhoods as evidence that New York is racist. I'd like you to consider a computer modelling study done a few years ago (I can't find the citation, so you'll just have to trust me here). The computer simulation was based on a grid in which "people" could live. The people were characterized as either blue or green. At certain time intervals, some of the people could move. They gave the people a preference - and not a racist one per se. They didn't say "Blue people don't want to be near Green people", all they did was include a preference that Blue People have at least 2 Blue neighbors. That's it. And what happened over time? The Blues and Greens completely segregated themselves into neighborhoods.

    That means if white people have no general problem with black people, but want to live in the viscinity of at least one or two other white people, they'll eventually end up in segregated neighborhoods anyway.

    It's not racism. It's human nature.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think your characterization of New York City as a racist city is off the mark.

    Woah - I didn't say that. I said I find *more* of it here than elsewhere. LA is another big city, with a similar breakdown (politically - huge liberal base), and also has major problems - likely worse than NY. I used NYC as an example because I've lived here; I've only spent a couple weeks in LA.

    New York *is* one of the most diverse cities in the world, and one of the few in which almost any person of any kind can find a community in which they can be accepted.

    That's part of the point! Why can't they be accepted in *every* community? In Cleveland Heights (and I'm not saying Cleveland is great with race, either), I wouldn't blink an eye seeing anybody buying a house... and not just because they're only $120,000.

    I'm not saying that people don't often feel more comfortable among people who are more similar to them (see Jewish communities) - but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to feel comfortable in other communities as well, as happens so often here in NYC.

    Moreover, let's go with your report: Then why have affirmative action at all? Why force 'diversity' when people don't want it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1) I agree that Biden's remark was inexcusable, particularly with his history. ("You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.")

    2) I don't think "overt" means what you think it means.

    3) Senator Biden's remarks only demonstrate what seems to be a natural belief among higher-ranking Democrats, or some Democrats in general: Minorities need our help, because they can't do it themselves.

    Huh? Biden's remark demonstrates no such thing.

    4)There is but one black Democratic Senator, while there are two Republican Senators.

    Come on, in a Senate of 100, that is not a statistically significant difference.

    5)it is his views which are, and those views are shared by far too many, especially among the 'liberal elite'.

    That's ridiculous. I agree his views are shared by many, but the 'liberal elite' are hardly among the leaders of that crowd. Hint: they're mostly Republican. See Allen, Limbaugh, the whole confederate flag contingent, Bob Jones University, Pat Buchanan, most of the anti-affirmative-action folks, etc.

    As I responded to CWY on this issue, I look forward to your criticism of Limbaugh's "Halfrican American" routine.

    ReplyDelete
  4. JA - Overt kind of works here, too - it's not concealed. But yeah, I need a better word.

    ReplyDelete
  5. but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to feel comfortable in other communities as well, as happens so often here in NYC.

    But ofcourse people are not going to feel comfortable. There is no way around it. I live in LA and there is no way a person, who has a financial choice, would want to live in an area that is different that yours. The areas that are predominatly black or hispanic has gang activity. The apartments are more run down because the owner is not going to fix something up when he knows the property value is so low due to the people in the community.

    I live in a very big Jewish community, and we had a hard time finding a place to live. So when we went one block east of the major street where the community mostly ends, we were thrilled the prices were lower. But then we saw most of the people on the block were black, so we decided to forget about it. Not because the color of their skin, but becasue I know in this city, what an predominatly black neighborhood attracts. And, I turned out to be right. I talked to to a police LT. (coincidentally black) and he informed me that the crime is higher east of the street.

    IF there was a predominetly white community with black people living there, people have no problems, its when its the other way around that people flock out.

    ReplyDelete
  6. JA -

    1) Seriously!

    2) Yeah, yeah. It kind of does, and it's part of what I meant, but I'll change it to implicit, which is better.

    3) They're inarticulate! They're not bright!

    4) Yes it is - blacks make up close to 40% of Democratic voters. That's my point in that paragraph... there should be 20 of them!

    I can't recall if you were of those who complained about the makeup of the SCOTUS. Those who did, though, would be forced to agree with this.

    5) I haven't heard Limbaugh. As I've said in the past, I'm not a huge fan of his, even though I think he does make some very good points sometimes.

    Most of the anti-affirmative action folks? You've got to be kidding me. That would include: The Supreme Court (2/3 of them at least), and almost every Republican. I just heard a short presentation of a recent legal battle with the Univ. of Michigan about race - I assure you, the people (such as myself) who are against affirmative action are NOT racists. They do think that blacks are actually messed over in the deal, and some whites certainly are because it causes reverse discrimination. What my point is is that those who are pro-affirmative action are often the racist ones.

    ReplyDelete
  7. HH - But blacks are made to feel uncomfortable when they try to move away from the crime into nicer communities - by white people. The white people come up with different "protections" of their community to keep them out, on occasion.

    Liberals add to this by throwing money at black communities to help them "improve" - making it less likely for blacks who'd consider moving to actually do so. Some of these programs do help the communities; others have minimal impact. But ALL of them make it less likely for black people to move out of struggling communities.

    ReplyDelete
  8. But blacks are made to feel uncomfortable when they try to move away from the crime into nicer communities - by white people. The white people come up with different "protections" of their community to keep them out, on occasion.

    I dont know what kind of protections you mean, but I don't think white people (WP) make them feel uncomfortable. I believe WP themselves start feeling uncomfortabe and and black people (BP) might sence that. I am not going to start blaming wp for feeling anxiety when the community starts having more blacks. The people that might give bp a hard time about moving out are bp themselves, making them feel like sellouts.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I dont know what kind of protections you mean, but I don't think white people (WP) make them feel uncomfortable.

    Ha!

    The people that might give bp a hard time about moving out are bp themselves, making them feel like sellouts.

    Also true, also a huge problem, also done by leading Democratic organizations. Think Michael Steele = Uncle Tom for an easy example.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That little percentage trick you played at the end is just proof of the ridiculousness of "statistics". Facts are so easily skewed in whatever direction you wish. That last fact is just ridiculous to bring up as proof to anything.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ayelet - I was about to say "huh?!" as I explained it - now I see the post is cut off, not only in IE, but in Firefox. M'bad!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Biden was on the daily show last night and said that he meant 'fresh' as opposed to 'clean', and he loves Obama...whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Every city I have ever lived in has been segregated to an extent, and I didn't find that it necessarily equated to racist views. People like living near who they identify with, they like to feel like they fit in, rather than feeling like they are completely by themselves. That's normal. Even non-religious Jews tend to stay in the same neighborhoods, and it's not because they have to live close enough to a shul to walk. They like being near other Jews. Would you say that it's because they aren't welcome in other neighborhoods and that's a form of implicit racism?

    I'm not saying there isn't racism and discrimination out there - there definitely is. But, I don't think the segregation of neighborhoods is proof of that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. GP - Uh-huh.

    Shoshana - I'm not saying it necessarily is. I'm saying that it can be both a symptom of and a cause of further racism. Yes, most people do choose to live in a place where they feel more comfortable. But those who do not choose to live 'among their own' are made to feel uncomfortable; those who try to 'escape' poor communities have a hard time doing so; etc.

    New York City is supposed to be an incredibly diverse city - but it's really not. Each group has their own neighborhoods. I'm arguing that among some of the 'rich white' communities, you'll find a lot of people who are very happy that the neighborhoods are so segregated and who stereotype people based on race and community - more than you'll find in smaller cities and in middle America.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Democratic Party wants to keep racial minorities dependent on their "largess" in perpetuity. No rugged individualists allowed; these are all insulted and worse whenever they wander off the Democrats' plantation.

    ReplyDelete
  16. See NY Times Week in Review (2/4/07)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/weekinreview/04clemetson.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bob - Basically.

    Anon - Excellent! Thank you.

    ReplyDelete