What!? Racism Still in America?
Here we go again. Some people raise the issue of race (this time about the ways some other people are talking about or treating the first black president of the United States) and the media goes crazy. "What racism?" many of the pundits cry, "Didn't we just elect this black guy president?" (Implying: "Doesn't that prove that racism is over in America?").
So let's all just take a breath here -- as we always need to do when talking about race in America.
A few simple points:
First, on November 4, 2008, the United States did what only one other country that I know of ever has ever done -- elect a president from a minority race in a country with a different majority race. (Peru is the only other country I can think of to have done that, electing as their president Alberto Fujimori, of Asian ethnicity, in a predominantly Spanish country.) That a still predominantly white U.S. would elect a black man as head of state was stunning to many -- and, I must admit, to me. Frankly, it made me think that the country was better than I thought it was. That historic accomplishment is a sign of great progress and a hope of better things to come for racial equality and justice in the United States.
Second, the majority of Americans, and even of white Americans -- whether they voted for Obama or not -- seemed to feel proud and positive that the nation had finally reached this amazing milestone. Inaugurating Barack Obama on that January 20th Inauguration Day made most Americans feel good about themselves and about their country. The new president's approval rating climbed up to 70 percent in the week after the Inauguration, which obviously meant that even some of those who voted against him were impressed by how he was handling his job at the outset.
Third, there are many people, most of whom voted against Obama, who have basic disagreements with the president on substantive political issues. And to disagree with a black president on policy questions does not mean that you are racist. The people who initially approved of the president's job performance, but now disapprove, did not suddenly turn into racists. And my conservative friends who admire Obama personally but disagree with him politically can hardly be called racists.
But fourth -- and importantly -- there was, and is still, a hard core of racially-motivated white people in this nation who did vote against Obama because he is black, and who virulently oppose him as president because he is black. And that racist core of angry white Americans resides on the extreme political right of U.S. politics. The far-right wing in America has never supported racial equality. Their political representatives voted against both the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, and most have never repented of it. And, let's be honest, the loudest voices of right-wing talk radio and cable television appeal directly to that core with subtle and not-so-subtle racial messages, as has the right-wing of the Republican Party for many years.
If you were paying attention, you could see signs of that underlying racism at the most heated town meetings this summer. Of course, not everybody who attended, or even was mad about health care or the government at those meetings, is a racist -- most of those people weren't; but some of them clearly are. There were blatant signs of racism at some of the town meetings and, indeed, many signs that carried overtly racial messages.
I see those racial sub-texts in the intensity of the attacks on Obama -- not in the disagreements per se, but in the viciousness of the rhetoric. Racism is often about disrespect, and many African-American citizens are now feeling that the black president in the White House is being disrespected. I also see it in the supporters of the new "birthers" movement, who stir up doubts about Obama's citizenship. I see it in the furor over the president of the United States speaking to the nation's school children about studying and working hard. And, agree with me or not, I saw it in the disrespect shown toward a black president by a white Congressman from the South, whose less than enthusiastic apologies have now turned him into a fund-raising martyr, cheered on by a defiant rebel yell against the man (or is it "boy"?) in the White House.
We have all witnessed or experienced situations where someone has "played the race card" in inappropriate or unfair ways. And racism is not the cause or explanation of every social problem. Nor are legitimately different points of view obvious signs of racism. And President Barack Obama has not played the race card, expecting only to be treated as a man -- not a "black man"-- and to be judged as a president and not as an "African-American president."
But let's be honest. We all know that racism still exists in America today. We know that there is a hard core of our white fellow citizens who simply will not accept their black or brown brothers and sisters -- especially one in the White House. So while we should not call every disagreement an issue of racism, it is time call out the racism that indeed does still exist -- that wounds our soul as a nation, and that obstructs the promise of the United States.
Jim Wallis is the author of The Great Awakening
Follow Jim Wallis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jimwallis
William Bradley: The Inevitable Fluke That Is Sarah Palin
Five minutes into yesterday's Oprah extravaganza with Sarah Palin, I messaged Steve Schmidt, John McCain's presidential campaign manager: "So how did you know Bristol was pregnant before it was announced?"
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hmmm...racism...race...human race...
There is all kind of "racism" if you include prejudice too.
Has been going on since beginning of time.
Maybe it is sometimes a person's own insecurity that makes them think everything is attributed to race.
A lot of the time it is because they break the rules and it is easier to blame it on something than admit it is their own fault.
Ever since Pres. Obama has been elected (by black and white), the news media does its share of bringing up the subject of race.
There seems to be 3 classes of blacks and whites.
There are the well educated...middle class (what is left of them) and those that fall into a (dare I say) welfare class. This is for all races.
Each group tends to be prejudiced against the other.
Some are angry because some people lay around and collect gov't money and some are angry because they blame another class for what they can't achieve.
So we need to deal with it before something erupts in this country and it won't be a volcano....just emotions waiting to explode.
Whatever motivated Joe Wilson’s slanderous outburst at Obama, what needs to be criticized is that his outrage was over the possibility that poor immigrants might get healthcare!!! 27 times God told His people in the Torah (the Talmud hyperbolically proclaims ‘27 times 27’) “that one should not persecute the alien and stranger in your land, nor abuse him, that the alien and stranger is to be treated as a family member, given shelter and food, that there be only one and the same law for the alien and for God’s people…. “What is God’s explanation for this proto-socialist, trans-national, open border policy? God reminds them over and over: “Because you were once alien and strangers in a foreign land, abused and oppressed, and I delivered you…” I don’t reckon I need to go into how the Christian bible attends to this issue. Obama (to his and America’s shame) assured us in his speech that “no illegals would be allowed access to healthcare in his plan.” Wilson apologized, Beck went nutz, both parties have added big bucks to their political campaigns, self-righteousness and moral indignation abounds…and the poor suffer. obliged, Daniel Imburgia.
You betha and Palin helped usher it back in the limelight.
Rev Wallis, I beg to differ.
You state "Of course, not everybody who attended, or even was mad about health care or the government at those meetings, is a racist -- most of those people weren't; but some of them clearly are."
>20 years ago I attended a workshop where I was advised that, because I am white and grew up in a racist culture, I am racist.
At the start of the workshop I dug in my heels and replied "No. Not me."
Fortunately I stayed and listened. At the end of it I found that I do indeed engage in racist behaviors. I count my change when a cashier of African decent gives it to me without counting it for me, I find myself at a higher level of alertness when I am outdoors at night in the vicinity of a man of African decent. These things are considered "microinsults." I am more mindful of them now. But, unfortunately I acknowledge that I still engage in these barely conscious behaviors.
Most people of African decent are law abiding citizens who just want to make a living and raise their kids and get on about their days like everybody else.
Sadly, this is still a racist culture. The question is not "Am I a racist?" The question is "To what degree am I a racist?" "To what degree am I aware of my racism?"
I think if we all just accepted it and worked at becoming increasingly aware of our own racism, we'd be miles ahead of the game. We need to practice the humility to admit we are not perfect.
thank you for speaking to this issue, i can relate. i'm a 44 year old woman whose mother is from atlanta and father is from utah. i was born in california and have lived here all my life feeling comfortable in our very diverse culture. i was aware of overt forms of racism and was taught that it was wrong. in my 20s, i took a womens studies class that covered the topic in detail and it opened my mind. having been born into a white, upper middle class, the concept of 'white privilege' escaped me. i did not realize the doors that opened to me by the mere fact of my whiteness. i learned some of the more subtle forms of racist attitudes that were practiced by my folks which i do not want to emulate, much less teach to my children.
i continued my education as an adult, majoring in anthropology (where one really must divorce oneself of prejudgment in order to succeed) and minored in spanish and california studies. i'm grateful for that experience, it gave me the knowledge, strength and courage to speak out (obviously).
Thank you for being such a decent human being. Contrary to what many think, black people do not LOOK for racism in every dealing with our white brothers. We do not automatically assume that every action against us is motivated by race or that all white people are racist. But then there are those "microinsults", as you call it. In my experience, being a black woman, it has been assumed that I work in a staff position. I've had white people innocently say, "wow, you're really smart". As if it's a shock to them. When I shared an office with a white coworker, some white folks would automatically direct project requests or questions to her when I was the lead in the department - she then had to redirect the question to me - in front of them. Yet they still had an aversion to addressing me directly, or when I spoke, they looked to her for confirmation. I notice these things but I don't automatically attribute them to full-on, thought-out racism. Its more subconscious that that. I chalk it up to a learning experience, FOR THEM. And I don't mind being the teacher.
Go hang out at a real bar and listen to people when they are talking about politics or for that matter sports. Listen to their language and then the real under belly of some will provide the answer.
Yes, many of the signs people carried in the conservative rally last weekend were overtly racist in nature. One said something about an "African "lying" in the White House." Rush Limbaugh has called President Obama a halfrican-American and Beck said the president has a deep seated hatred of white people, for no reason at all. Beck and other conservatives still use race to create fear among their overwhelmingly white listeners many of whom are not very educated (or else they would not be listening.) It is the same tactic Republicans have used since the 1960's when they adopted their Southern strategy. It was what Reagan was doing when he opened his run for the presidency in Philadelphia, Mississippi in a town where three civil rights workers were executed and he spoke about state's rights. It is a shameful tactic and in the long run it only further marginalizes them, but conservatives rarely think about the long run or what is best for the country.
Let's not ignore also the less acknowledged fact that there are blacks who are racists against whites. Witness the fact that even today there are organizations who will publically state "white devils" without batting an eye. The press seems to ignore these bigots for the sake of political correctness.
I have also witnessed fellow Hispanics say disparaging remarks about whites. Again this is never acknowledged. Yes, there is racism is America albeit it is decreasing significantly, the election of Obama being the best proof of that. We as a society should identify these pockets of racism wherever they are and open them up to the light and ridicule they so deserve.
while there may be some prejudice along the lines you suggest, it hardly relates to the topic at hand. i would argue just as strongly against racism of any kind, but what you are describing is more of an issue of prejudice.
racism towards blacks has been institutionalized in this nation before it's inception; this is what we are confronting right now because it undermines our president and must be stopped.
the difference between pregudice and racism is a question of power (a conglomeration of wealth and influence).
i will agree with you that we must confront this ugliness whenever the opportunity presents itself and i too think ridicule is a perfect tool for doing just that.
Well said, fauxmccoy.
The defensiveness implicit of having to say, every time racism is discussed, "Blacks are racist too," is a good indication of just how racist we are, as a culture. Whether or not a black person is prejudiced against white people doesn't not negate the racism directed at the president. It's not a "one cancels the other out" kind of situation.
Yes, there are minorities who hold racist attitudes about white people and, although that's not exactly relevent to the article, that should also be condemned. The reason the media doesn't report on them (as much, they crop up from time to time) is not because of "political corectness" (your media is almost entirely coporate and political corectness was never the tyranny it was represented as), it's more because of two other biases the media have: Numbers and sensationalism.
Numbers is obvious. White people are the majority in the US. If we assume that a similar percentage of minorities and white people are bigots, say 1%, you're still looking at a much larger number of white bigots. Sensationalism is pretty simple. White racism allows the media to run clips of old Klan rallies, "Birth Of A Nation" and so on. Minority bigots have rarely been numerous enough and powerful enough for there to be similar clips that can be played to cover those stories.
You really tell it like it is Mr Wallis. To me this is the most insightful and balanced piece I have read on the issue of racism since Joe Wilson shouted 'You Lie' to Obama and more recently when Carter weighed in.
My question and maybe you can also write a piece on it is: Why is the Republican party allowing the far right wing to dictate its agenda and branding?
To some of us silence means consent and it's getting very very very hard to distinguish between Republicans and the far right wing.
Great point!
Well said!
Racism is "obviously" in play when a protest about a "national" issue is planned, executed & attended solely by people with "white" skin.
When last was a "national" issue in America protested "only" by white or "only" by black people? If you find one, it too "must" have been racially motivated. This is a principle that universally holds... without exception.
Racism is alive and well in this country. I was publicly called the N word in 2006 not 1966. Joe came out of the bigot closet in a moment of passionate impulse where he just could not contain his disdain for this African American white house resident. "Say It Ain't So Joe" Is Joe Wilson a racist? "You Betcha"
I'm Asian and I got called the C word in 2005, so I believe you.
For the most part, people do not use slurs in public, but you can see the same contempt when they stare at you up and down ("How dare an Asian woman be well dressed?! They should be MAIDS!") Or when they try to cut in front of you--and look surprised when you take them down for it. (And these are folks over 45--old enough to know better.) Or when they pretend they don't see you. Etc.
I agree, that yes, racism exists. As reverse racism does as well. And I agree that there are those who would never ever vote for a black man. I also agree that some of those people who are being grouped with racists because they attended the townhalls, etc. do have legitimate concerns not pertaining to race.
Unfortunately, and I've said it many times on this board, there are some who are willing to throw the R word out like they were saying their name. There is truly ugly racism in our nation and this generalizing tends to take away from those times when the term is warranted.
I wonder what your opinion is on this article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_re_us/us_crying_racism
Thanks for your thoughts.
Reverse racism is one of the dumbest terms I've ever read/heard in my life.
agreed!
And people who use it are not to bright either!
People who are put down, wanting to get back at those who put them down. Does it exist, probably but to call it reverse racism misses the point.
"Reverse racism" is not even a logical term to use for racism by minorities against whites, as it implies NO racism. If blacks are being racist towards whites, it's called RACISM. There is no new term necessary, as it would imply that only WHITES can be "racist", and so when another race does it, it has be called something else.
There's no such thing as "reverse racism". It's still just plain old racism, even if it's directed at white people.
Reverse Racism? Really? Whites are naturally racist and anyone else who is racist towards them, well that's unusual so we have to come up with a new term, new meaning?
Sexism can be directed at men or women, right? It's not just men who are sexist. When women say all men are dogs, sexist.
Racists usually have a tendency to think negatively, antagonistically, toward a certain group of people based only on the color of their skin. People can be racist towards people in their own ethnic group. Anyone can be a racist. And it is incumbent on all of us to think about what we say, what we do, in effort to be fair. It's hard to be fair. It's hard not to let our personal influences guide our thinking and assumptions some time. But as adults, we have to try.
Let's not make up unnecessary terms, we already have enough; Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity.
Don't forget the Arizona university that refused to give the president an honorary degree last May.
Shameful.
so what?
Well, because his "most important body of work has yet to be seen." Unlike the other profoundly celebrated recipient of an honorary degree, Erma Bombeck.
Get your head out of your ass. I know plenty of college who'd LOVE to give the President of the United States an honorary degree.
Some of those hardcore racist are on the left as well and claiming hose racists r only in the South or among conservative is just as ignorant as conservatives claiming racism is over. There are many liberals who are racist. Just go to Boston, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Illinois. They are there.
I agree. In fact, this became quite evident during the campaign, with the PUMAs who supported Hillary but even as Democrats, refused to support the Democratic candidate when Hillary lost the nomination, and I'll never "blue-collar" Americans, also Democrats, who admitted quite candidly that they could not vote for a black man for President. If I'm not mistaken, it was also a Democrat who led one of the intiital birther movements to the Supreme Court.
But the difference between the left and the right, is that the r@cists on the left do not present an image of being the whole party, as the r@cists on the right do. This image also plays into the narrative of the South, in that it's become obvious that the Republican Party has become the party of the South. So when you put the two together, you essentially end up with a party of southern r@cists - or at least that's the perception, and perception is 99% reality.
I believe you should do research on what PUMAs are before believing what you read in the MSM.
Real talk...
You are right everybody is an "ist" of some kind and they are everywhere. So watch your back and lock up the children, that "ist" you asre fearing might just be in your mirror.
Of course there are racists on the left as well. Difference is, ours know well enough to shut up for the most part.
And that racist core of angry white Americans resides on the extreme political right of U.S. politics. The far-right wing in America has never supported racial equality. Their political representatives voted against both the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, and most have never repented of it.
And what party did Lincoln belong to? Who in our history has done more for individual rights than he? And this other argument Civil Rights Act, did you ever think it was written wrong? Because if it were right we wouldn't be writing this now. There are good reasons not to vote for somthing even when it is a good cause.
He needs to check his history. A greater proportion of Republicans in Congress voted from the 1964 and 1965 acts then did Democrats.
the racist core of our society tends to side with whatever party is courting them. in the sixties, these were the 'dixiecrats'. as nixon came along with his 'southern strategy' to woo the dixiecrats into the republican party, the demographic changed. it matters not what letter (r or d) comes after a persons name -- racism is alive and well and should be called out regardless of where it is found.
than heavens that a man with carter's wisdom and background had the ability to speak up about what was so obviously occurring in today's hate filled political divide. yes, it's an ugly can of worms, but open it we must. turning a blind eye is never an option.
You need to check your history. It was Democratic President Lyndon Johnson's support and sponsorship of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 that prompted southern Democrats to bolt from the party. When the Act passed, Johnson predicted that it would be the end of the Democratic party in the south, and it was. The republicans sensed an edge and came up with the infamous "Southern Strategy" which featured appeals to racial resentment. This strategy was first successful in 1968 when Nixon won, and the republicans have been appealing to racists ever since.
The race issue is a fuzzy one, and getting fuzzier by the day. For example, by taking the main point of this article and changing just three words (in all CAPS), a totally different argument can be made...."But fourth -- and importantly -- there was, and is still, a hard core of racially-motivated BLACK people in this nation who did vote FOR Obama because he is black, and who virulently SUPPORT him as president because he is black."
Would anyone seriously argue that this is not true? Are these folks therefore racist? Obama got more blacks than ever before to turn out and vote. He also captured more than 95% of the black vote. Were some of these votes racially motivated? My guess is a fair amount were.
Is anyone therefore willing to say out loud and MEAN it that "Anyone who votes or supports a person based on the color of his/her skin is a racist?" If so, I'm thinking there are a lot of folks out there on BOTH sides of the racist argument.
Voting FOR someone is very different than voting AGAINST someone. One is positive, the other negative.
Obama received approximately 95% of the black vote, as did Bill Clinton in both 1992 and 1996. Were the votes for Clinton racially motivated?
What about the 95% of blacks who did NOT vote for Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Alan Keyes when these black men ran for President, and voted instead for the white candidate? Were these votes, or non-votes, also racially motivated?
How often in the past did large segments of the black community vote against a candidate solely because he was white, as did large segments of the white community who voted against President Obama solely because he's black?
Many African Americans did not initially support President Obama, and were persuaded - just as their white counterparts were - only after realizing unequivocally that he was the better candidate. Had he been anything less, the color of his skin alone would not have guaranteed him the African American vote.
Your argument does not hold up ...
excellent point and well stated argument. fanned and faved!
up until this election, my lily white behind voted for white candidates. does that make me a racist? obviously not. to conclude that blacks who voted for obama are racists is juvenile.
EXACTLY! What about the nearly 75% of black residents in Maryland that voted against Michael Steele in his Senate race in 2006? He was running against a white guy. What happened to the black people stick together model then? No, black people are democrats in general so they vote for the democrat.
Could.Not.Have.Said.It.Better.
Very well said...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
