Racism’s sinister word games: What a white-supremacist talking point tells us about modern politics

[KamaAina]

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/20/racisms_sinister_word_games_what_a_white_supremacist_talking_point_tells_us_about_modern_politics/

In a striking recent video interview, a Guardian reporter presses Pat Godwin, president of Selma, Alabama’s United Daughters of the Confederacy, on the question of whether viewers are right to assume Godwin’s expressed views are racist. Godwin replies, “Well, you have to define ‘racist’ to me. What is a racist?” Godwin’s subsequent comments demonstrate that her question is mainly rhetorical, a gesture meant to indicate that “racist” is too subjective a term to carry any weight, ever. For Godwin,

“The word ‘racist’ is, like I say so many times, is like beauty; beauty is in the eye…the eyes of the beholder. Well, if someone is defining racist or racism, it all depends on who’s defining it, because it’s their opinion. It’s their opinion. I’m a racist in the sense that I’m white, I was born white, I’m proud to be white, I believe in my race, I want to see it perpetuated, I want it to survive on this planet. I defend, protect, and preserve my white race.”

When the reporter turns to one of Godwin’s associates and asks him, “Are you racist as well?” he fires back programmatically: “Define racism.”

Though the reporter has already given a working definition, and Godwin a mini-dissertation on defining racism, the gentleman is quick to ape Godwin’s rhetorical strategy — to invalidate any charges of racism by challenging any definition of the word itself.

"That depends on what the meaning of the word 'racism' is."

[gollygee]

1. My favorite part of the article

“Define racism” is not an easy prompt with an easy answer, but we do have answers much better developed than Godwin’s opinion-based approach to the question. If we historicize racism, rather than treating it as abstraction or opinion, we find that racism in the U.S. is not just discrimination in general, but a history of a dominant class of European whites subjecting minorities by means of things like the theft of land, the destruction of native populations, slavery, internment, Jim Crow, voting restrictions, restrictions on access to education and home ownership, and hurtful or defamatory portrayals in entertainment and media.

Minorities can be discriminatory or bigoted against whites, but “racism” gains value as a term through its specificity. Racism is not about general bigotry or discrimination (notice we already have words for those general kinds of human behavior), but the history of systematic forms of discrimination perpetrated by whites. Conservatives vested in notions of “reverse-racism” hate this qualification because they confuse the two-way logic of “discrimination” with the specific historical purchase of “racism” as its own term. But we use “racism” in this specific way because the repeated, race-based subjugation of minorities by whites in U.S. history is a specific phenomenon that merits a name. Attempts to muddle the meanings and associations of that name—“racism”—are so often attempts to minimize that history, to make it disappear by attacking the name we’ve given it.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Thanks for posting that part here.

It really puts it all in a capsule.

[Cayenne]

4. Hate because of race is racism; lets keep it simple

Framing this to where the only racists are straight, white males is not right either.

[gollygee]

5. Maybe you need to read the article

or just read that section again and maybe you can see how different it is when people of color are discriminated against than when white people are discriminated againt.

[Jim Lane]

8. I read that section and I disagree with it.

In the United States, whites now have and have always had far more power to practice race-based discrimination -- but that doesn't mean that other races have zero power. Suppose, in a predominantly black neighborhood, an all-black local school board entrusted with hiring decisions is selecting a new assistant principal, and picks the black candidate over a better-qualified white rival because the board members would rather help a black. I have no problem applying the term "racism" to that decision.

If it's not racism, what is it? If you want to say "Whites refusing to hire blacks is racism but blacks refusing to hire whites isn't racism, it's just race-based discrimination," then you're going to get bogged down in a pointless argument about the definition. Letting racists paint you as applying a double standard merely gives them a fine opportunity to distract from the real issues.

[gollygee]

9. The difference is

that the white candidate can move to the next school district to escape the discrimination, where the black candidate could find that kind of discrimination at school district after school district.

[Jim Lane]

11. There are many differences.

The difference you cite might or might not apply in a particular instance.

Your argument is for a type of affirmative action in which the school board gives a preference to a candidate who'll have more trouble finding a job elsewhere. What if the white candidate lives in the area, perhaps is even now a teacher at the same school, and can't readily relocate? What if the white candidate is really ugly, perhaps as a result of an accident that disfigured his or her face?

If the board members apply a "helping hand" policy in which they'll give a preference to the candidate with fewer prospects, then they need to consider race but other factors as well. My hypothetical was that they're considering race, period. Your different hypothetical policy is an interesting one -- the board that hires the less qualified candidate who'll have trouble getting a job elsewhere is doing that person a good turn but is arguably violating its duty to the students. I think that policy would be ethically dubious but I'd agree with you in not calling it racism if it's applied comprehensively.

[gollygee]

12. Racism is bigger picture

Last edited Sat Mar 21, 2015, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Not limited to one school board. Most peope in a position to hire in the US are white. A large enough majority to create serious systemic inequities. African American men with clean records have a more difficult time getting hired than white men with criminal records (I read in an article but you can google if you want and it's all over.) You're looking at the micro level, which is discrimination. Racism is a macro thing - something that follows you from job to job, or job interview to job interview - something you see everywhere. People of color face racial discrimination in most job situations, particularly in hiring. White people only face racial discrimination in job hiring very occasionally. That makes a huge difference.

[bettyellen]

14. The differences that matter here? Bigotry= personal and racism=systemic....

This is how the words were refined to distinctively name each phenomenon. Because they have different causes and consequences and sometime in the latter half of the twentieth century academics finally delved into studying those things.
Then people learned about it, and the usage spread.

[Jim Lane]

15. That usage hasn't spread very far, at least not yet.

Maybe it's common in academia and among some segments of the left. Nevertheless, there are millions of Americans who've never heard that distinction, and, of course, those millions are the people we have to reach.

Suppose a Republican, looking to make trouble for officeholders he doesn't like anyway, says, "The South Succotash School Board selected a black candidate, stating that the white candidate had better credentials but that they were making the decision based partly on race. That's racism, and it's wrong."

Logically, yes, you could respond by saying, "That's not racism because the system overall works for whites against blacks, so that was an instance of bigotry but not racism." Logically, further, you could make clear that you think this particular instance of bigotry was wrong. That's a consistent position.

As a practical matter, however, quite a few people are going to interpret "That's not racism" as meaning "That's not wrong." The right wing will spin it as a double standard, saying that you excuse behavior in blacks that you condemn when a white does it.

Thus, using the terms that way carries a heavy cost, and I don't see a corresponding benefit. Obviously, the way racism (in the broad sense) affects whites and blacks is fundamentally different. But the people who don't believe that (or at least pretend not to believe it) aren't going to be swayed by an esoteric academic redefinition of terms. It's more fruitful to acknowledge that whites can sometimes be the victims of racism and to urge that all instances of racism be ended -- regardless of who's the perpetrator and who's the victim.

[bettyellen]

16. Lol, affirmative action = racism? Wow.

[Jim Lane]

18. No, I did NOT say that and don't believe it.

I swear, when someone on DU expresses disagreement with something I've supposedly said, the times when I haven't actually said it are the majority. Or maybe it just seems that way to me because it's so irritating when it happens.

[bettyellen]

19. Rereading your post, you are expressing that affirmative action is legitimately a bigoted

Or racist thing. You argue from a RW frame to defend people who want to limit all discussion of racism. Just wow!

[Jim Lane]

20. Doubling down on the silliness, I see.

I expressly disclaim a particular view, so you decide to reiterate that I hold it, and then you add another supposed view of mine ("limit all discussion of racism&quot that I also don't hold.

Presumably this post of mine will indicate that I favor restoring apartheid in South Africa or something. If my express statements aren't good enough for you, then I know of no way of going any further. You've chosen to hold a ludicrously wrong opinion about me and I'll just have to live with that.

[bettyellen]

21. You said nothing to dispute that affirmative action is indeed racist ....

And do not like the refinement in language used to describe racism- which would enhance people's understanding of same. Both inexplicable coming from a progressive.

[Jim Lane]

22. OK, let me try again: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS NOT RACIST

As to the other point, if you regard it as "inexplicable" that's your privilege but I provided my explanation. It's my opinion, for the reasons I stated, that this "refinement in language" will retard rather than enhance people's understanding of racism, and that it will undermine real-world efforts to deal with real-world racism.

[bettyellen]

25. Because you seem to be okay with people describing affirmative action as racism...

Instead of rejecting that notion.

[Jim Lane]

27. I've rejected that notion every time you've brought it up.

Last time I rejected it in all caps. I'm sorry, I don't know what more I can do. We're just not communicating.

[boston bean]

3. This ploy is used constantly here and on the net in general...

usually when people are trying to defend something that is racist or misogynistic.

[JustAnotherGen]

6. Even right here on this thread

[bettyellen]

17. Its everywhere- amazing this article exposes it as a silly trick used

To avoid the deeper conversation.
Other stupid tricks are citing an instance of possible affirmative action or quoting Beyonce's income.
Seriously?

[JustAnotherGen]

7. Good article

It shows how the mind works of someone who believes others are not as human as them.

[cali]

10. that is a GREAT article and voices my frustration with the rhetorical

word games that bigots and racist and... republicans play.

[ananda]

13. This is crazy.

Ask a person if they are racist and you cannot possibly
expect a decent answer if the person is actually racist.

Only a person with an examined life and conscience can
or would answer that question... but neither would they
be openly standing as a white supremacist.

Sheesh!

[MellowDem]

23. Some KKK chapters and white supremacist groups...

Do no longer claim to be supremacists (which I guess wouldn't make them supremacist) but more segregation oriented, and some not even that. They also claim no hatred of black people, Jews, etc.

Not exactly surprising when one of the more traditional definitions of racism (believe in the idea of genetic racial superiority) has been proven by science to be false. Some of these groups aren't convinced anymore by that idea.

So why do these particular groups still have KKK chapters etc.? It's mostly to create a new white identity that's not really all that strong in the US for obvious reasons, but is getting stronger. Whites are losing population and power, they can't necessarily rely exclusively on the status quo to support them anymore, and so some get scared and decide to do what many groups do, organize. They really are animated by the idea that the identity they have formed and come to love will be completely eradicated and destroyed. They see themselves as cultural preservationists.

So you can argue with them all you want that racism is wrong, but you're arguing past them. These people see themselves as persecuted and see society as one giant double standard against whites. You can see a lot of the same reaction among conservatives Christians. A dominant group losing grip on power, and people who haven't come to terms with privilege, and some really irrational fears as a result. In many ways, they envy what minorities do have organizationally, and are copying that for whites, just without much of the nuance or understanding of why there isn't a White Entertainment Channel etc.

They are the victims, and this is a relatively new phenomenon, and though they're extreme, they do reflect on the broader shift in much of white America to identify more readily with their whiteness.

It's not a bad sign necessarily, as it shows us racism has lost a lot of adherents, but there's not much history of dominant groups losing power without some sort of struggle. And of course the racial bigotry remains and is more rampant than ever.

The real game changer will be in how people identify. If skin color becomes as incomsequential as eye color in the US, then this won't be so much of a problem. People will no longer fear the extinction of a trait that has no cultural or personal meaning to them.

[Blue_Tires]

24. +1...

They've made themselves a lot more "mainstream" over the years...And not by coincidence, either...

[gwheezie]

26. Perpetuating the white race seems weird to me

Why? What does that even mean? how is a person proud of being white? I'm white. I never felt proud of being white or felt the urge to perpetuate the white race. Do you have to submit people to dna tests or say you find out you're not 100% white then what do you do?

[maxrandb]

28. Profound

while some Dems get "butt-hurt" about our potential nominees husband saying "it depends on what the word 'is' is", and demand "purity" of Democratic candidates, we're getting our asses handed to us by a party that says "it depends on what the word 'racism' is"

Well, Dems...sit on your hands through one more election and you'll learn...

Too bad it will be too late to save this fucking country!