Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Empowerer

(3,900 posts)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 10:04 PM Jan 2016

It's become clear that "divisive" is just a euphemism for "makes white people uncomfortable"

Although every issue, if it doesn't enjoy unanimous support, is "divisive" in some way, I usually only see the term applied to people and issues that white folks don't want to address or even hear about because it makes them uncomfortable. That's been very clear in the recent dust-up over Bernie Sanders position on reparations, which he says he does not support because they are "divisive." But many of the issues that he endorses are divisive and that, in fact, seems to be the primary reason his supporters love him - they claim to want a fighter who isn't afraid to stand up to the powers that be and who will, in fact, get in their faces. Yet he's quick to turn around and walk away from this issue because it's "divisive."

I suspect that, in this instance, as in most others, "divisive" really means that white people who support him don't want to discuss reparations because it makes them uncomfortable. Not only is this a sensitive, complicated issue that requires more than a shallow, simple response, it also forces liberal whites to check their own privilege and to look at things in a different way than they are used to - outside of their comfort zone, not a pleasant or easy thing to do, especially for those who very self-satisfied with their own presumed perfection on all things racial because, for example, they didn't own slaves, they've never used the n-word, they have black friends and/or they marched with Dr. King.

So much easier to push it away with accusations that those who endorse reparations are being unreasonable and "divisive."

25 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
It's become clear that "divisive" is just a euphemism for "makes white people uncomfortable" (Original Post) Empowerer Jan 2016 OP
LOL ! Now," THAT'S" a no brainer. n/t jaysunb Jan 2016 #1
There are anti-black sentiments in the Latino azmom Jan 2016 #2
Because that's who I've chosen to focus on in this thread Empowerer Jan 2016 #4
More power to you. azmom Jan 2016 #5
.... Number23 Jan 2016 #9
Historically, have the Asian and Latino communities wildeyed Jan 2016 #8
You people and your FACTS, I hate it when you people use FACTS to fuck randys1 Jan 2016 #10
The Coates piece is great, but the answer is that, realistically, in 2016... thesquanderer Jan 2016 #21
But did you read the article? wildeyed Jan 2016 #23
I did read it, and thought my response was relevant... thesquanderer Jan 2016 #24
NAILED IT! brush Jan 2016 #3
You are onto something here. brer cat Jan 2016 #6
Exactly! Empowerer Jan 2016 #7
This is so deep-seated in conversations with whites. Starry Messenger Jan 2016 #11
You do VERY well in writing Empowerer Jan 2016 #12
*blush* Starry Messenger Jan 2016 #15
It's all they know YoungDemCA Jan 2016 #25
Yep. And "class warfare" is a euphemism for "makes rich people uncomfortable." mhatrw Jan 2016 #13
"Radical" when applied to a black person is also a euphemism for "makes white people uncomfortable" Empowerer Jan 2016 #14
Sure does JustAnotherGen Jan 2016 #16
yet so many lower income whites support trump JI7 Jan 2016 #18
Amen. n/t OneGrassRoot Jan 2016 #17
Well said! n/t Spazito Jan 2016 #19
Kick and recommended ismnotwasm Jan 2016 #20
+1 ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #22

azmom

(5,208 posts)
2. There are anti-black sentiments in the Latino
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 10:31 PM
Jan 2016

and Asian communities. Why are you focusing on white Americans?

Empowerer

(3,900 posts)
4. Because that's who I've chosen to focus on in this thread
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 10:36 PM
Jan 2016

You are, of course, free to start your own discussion addressing anti-black sentiments in other communities of color. If you do, I will look forward to seeing your thoughts and possibly engaging with you on that issue. In the meantime, I will continue with the topic I've chosen to address.

Thanks.

wildeyed

(11,243 posts)
8. Historically, have the Asian and Latino communities
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 12:20 AM
Jan 2016

subjected Black Americans to Slavery, Jim Crow, redlining? Denied them voting rights? Counted them as 3/5ths of a person by law? No. Do Asians or Latinos make up the majority group in this country? No. Do they wield the largest portion of economic power? No.

It is important to understand the difference between racism and bigotry. Racism is the SYSTEMATIC use of race that privileges one group economically over another. Bigotry is an individuals words or actions that are based in prejudice. It is possible for Asians and Latinos to be bigots, but they do not have the numbers or economic power to SYSTEMATICALLY deny Blacks rights and economic access. And they have not done so historically. Whites have historically done these things and systematically continue. We as individuals may not support the systemic use of race for economic gain, but it does not change the fact of the system. So that is why Coates singles out Whites when focusing on SYSTEMIC racism, and not the bigotry of other minority groups.

It's not meant to make people feel bad, just to name the problem so we can work toward a solution.

On edit: I see the Coates article is not directly linked here, so I am providing a link. I think that my reasoning still directly addresses the question of why we talk about white racism and not bigotry of other minority groups.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
10. You people and your FACTS, I hate it when you people use FACTS to fuck
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 01:27 PM
Jan 2016

with my narrative.

And by you people I of course mean you dastardly LIBERALS

My brain hurts from all the FACTS you people insist on mentioning













thesquanderer

(11,986 posts)
21. The Coates piece is great, but the answer is that, realistically, in 2016...
Wed Jan 27, 2016, 11:16 AM
Jan 2016

...I don't think anyone who embraces reparations would have a chance of winning the general election.

I'm sure even Sanders knows he can try to push things so far, but no farther, if he is actually in this to win, as opposed to merely influencing the conversation. Even if, deep down, he thought reparations were a good idea, I think it would hurt his campaign to say so.

thesquanderer

(11,986 posts)
24. I did read it, and thought my response was relevant...
Wed Jan 27, 2016, 02:56 PM
Jan 2016

...both to the article, and to the conversation here, beginning with the OP.

The article's conclusing paragraph says:

These and other questions were recently put to Sanders. His answer was underwhelming. It does not have to be this way. One could imagine a candidate asserting the worth of reparations, the worth of John Conyers H.R. 40, while also correctly noting the present lack of working coalition.


My reply is relevant to that... that endorsing reparations would be damaging to his chance of winning the general election, even if he paired it with a recognition that there was no coalition to support it, as the author suggests.

Also, Coates is creating a no-win scenario with that proposed "solution" -- if Sanders were to say that he's for reparations except that there is no coalition to support it, just how does he distinguish that from single payer and the rest of his proposals that likewise would never get passed in the current Congress? His campaign is largely about creating a new consensus to do things that the current etsbalishment cannot do. In trying to convince the electorate that he is leading us toward a kind of people's revolution, how is he supposed to say that together we can create a new consensus to do "impossible" items x and y, but not z?

brer cat

(24,559 posts)
6. You are onto something here.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 11:48 PM
Jan 2016

"Divisive" is often in a sentence that starts "I'm not a racist, but..." and likely includes something about "outside agitators" among references to "good Nigras." Of course, I'm from the south so your experience may vary. But wherever, it becomes too "divisive" when it is a subject that threatens to puncture our bubble, whether our white privilege or perfect liberalism. It is not unlike #BLM confronting Bernie in the yuppie paradise of Seattle.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
11. This is so deep-seated in conversations with whites.
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 02:33 PM
Jan 2016

Trying to get people to uncenter whiteness is like mental judo. I'm not a skilled orator, I usually do well in writing, but when this crops up in face-to-face discussions, trying to find a way to talk about how just privileging white middle class needs isn't going to address the racism and inequality in this country, people look at you like you're making the noises in the Peanuts cartoons when the adults talk.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
15. *blush*
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 08:38 PM
Jan 2016

Seriously, the writers in this group are so inspiring, with the breadth and depth of OPs like this, I really carry away this work with me into my off-DU activism. ((group hug))

 

YoungDemCA

(5,714 posts)
25. It's all they know
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 03:35 PM
Jan 2016

And not only that, but they (white, middle class people) benefit from their privilege being invisible to them, psychologically as well as materially.

White people very rarely perceive themselves as being implicated in or responsible for racism, in practice. At best, racism is something that "racists" or "Southerners" or "uneducated" whites are responsible for - but never educated, middle class white people with "progressive" racial views. At worst, racism is projected by whites onto people of color ("Why are they always complaining? They're not enslaved or denied civil rights anymore! Maybe they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, like I did!&quot . Either way, racism is externalized onto "those other people."

We have a long, long way to go, indeed.

mhatrw

(10,786 posts)
13. Yep. And "class warfare" is a euphemism for "makes rich people uncomfortable."
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 06:43 PM
Jan 2016

And "radical" is a euphemism for "makes the establishment uncomfortable."

Empowerer

(3,900 posts)
14. "Radical" when applied to a black person is also a euphemism for "makes white people uncomfortable"
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 06:45 PM
Jan 2016
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
22. +1 ...
Wed Jan 27, 2016, 01:28 PM
Jan 2016

It never ceases to amaze me that white "liberals/progressives" can/will enter a discussion in the AA Group about race/racial issue for the twin purposes of calling our discussion "divisive", while introducing the REALLY, REAL all important, issue ... income inequality ... with not a hint that they are being divisive.

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»African American»It's become clear that &q...