My article for In These Times about the Race Chasm has generated a lot of discussion and feedback about race in America -- which I'm thrilled about. Race and class are the two issues that the Establishment is least interested in discussing -- despite their prominence in our politics. And so if an article I write generates some ferment, that's a good thing -- especially if it can also promote the work of a great progressive magazine like In These Times. That's exactly what happened this weekend when the article got some pretty major media coverage.
CNN, for instance, had me on to discuss the Race Chasm on its Newsroom program. You can watch it here:
The Denver Post ran an adapted version of the original Race Chasm article on the front page of its Sunday Perspective section. You can read it here. Similarly, The Portland Oregonian -- in advance of the state's upcoming primary -- ran an adapted version of the Race Chasm on its Sunday op-ed page. You can read it here.
The key part of my Post/Oregonian piece was the conclusion:
Summing up the right's "don't-ask-don't-tell" attitude when it comes to bigotry, New York Times conservative columnist Bill Kristol said, "The last thing we need now is a heated national conversation about race." From a cushy office in Washington, D.C. -- one of the most segregated cities in America -- it must be easy for well-heeled white commentators like Kristol to tell the rest of us that race should be ignored. But as the Race Chasm shows, now is precisely the time we need a national conversation about the divisions that still so clearly afflict our country.
Yes, as I said to begin this post, the conservative Establishment really doesn't want to talk about issues like race or class -- to the point where that Establishment's spokespeople take to the pages of the New York Times to demand silence. But these are debates that must not be silenced if we are to overcome these divides in the future.
While we need not make assertions about people in Iowa, as this whole race thing "new", we certainly can make assertions about many whites in Mississippi. While the media decried the loss of Obama's "white" percentage points there, there was an underlying statistic at play. I've read anywhere from 12% to 25% of the Clinton vote was from Republicans voting in response to Rush Limbaugh. That changes the results drastically. Even in Mississippi there were many white voters who had no problem with Obama. More than I would have thought. But the media keeps the "Rush-narrative" going without investigation and keeps the race question in question.
The same may be said for Southern Ohio, Kentucky, Southern Indiana, even parts of Southern Illinois where the accent is a drawl. Obama has the ability to get to everyone who is not harboring some kind of subconscious race problem, or is an out and out racist. Lack of familiarity IS what keeps people from understanding. There are many white people who have never met a black person.
There are hard-core democrats that will for reasons not neccessarily known to them, refuse to vote for Obama. We won't have statistics until the general, but it will be clear how many of them there are. They will be white, Democrat, and have voted for McCain.
Please tell me that the snatches I got left me with a wrong impression. Surely David didn't mean to imply that anyone voting for Hillary Clinton is doing so because they are a racist. If so, this is an unconscionable accusation. When will the Democrats and their bloggers stop throwing crap at one another? It will take all of us to win the November election. Please, try to find a way to come together, we all count!
I for one am tired of the foolishness, both from the people that reward the disgusting behavior, and from those afraid to stand up to closet racists, bigots and scoundrels of all kinds.
A common belief of what Obama would call resentful whites is that "blacks have had every
advantage", referring to the attempted remedies of welfare and affirmative action.
This foments false beliefs that somehow blacks are more privileged than anyone else.
One way to promote understanding is to get people to see things from the "other's" POV.
Most people have been some situation where they are in the minority, surrounded
by people of different race, different ethnic background/religion/speaking a different language.
Of course if you never travel outside the US and are never in an environment where people
are different from you . . .
Get the person to think about being in such a situation, imagining it if necessary.
Ask:
Did you feel uncomfortable because you were different from everybody around you?
Did you think that these people didn't like you?
It's probably true that some of those people were prejudiced against you - just because you
are white (different from them).
Feels pretty crappy to think that people don't like you for no good reason, doesn't it?
And you have no control over their prejudged opinion of you?
And some will treat you badly just based on your skin color/perceived background?
Now you have a small taste of what it's like to be a minority. If you were black you would face
countless similar situations in life. Is it any wonder that people self-segregate?
People that can't see other points of view as valid will never be able to do the exercise you outline.
I suppose it's strategic to only go so far in your commentary - pointing out that Kristol and his ilk
are doing all they can to make sure that the topic of racism does notreach the conscious mind.
You omit (perhaps on purpose) the reason Kristol and his Republican neo-con buddies do
this is so that their electoral strategies can operate below conscious awareness,
manipulating people's base emotions and fears.
But I suppose having conversations about race is a good way to bring this to people's
awareness as well.