An observation about why the Harris-Perry piece may have touched such a sore spot

[Empowerer]

In my view, based on experience and much study, one of the considerable advantages of being white in America is being taught and conditioned to believe that one is not a member of any particular group, but is, in fact, just an American. On the other hand, women, minorities and other groups have always, to varying degrees, been marginalized as subsets of the larger American family and are consistently reminded of this fact, regardless how hard we try to be just "people."

This advantage does not mean that all or most whites are racist or bigots or insensitive. But it is an entitlement that many whites have grown accustomed to and, in fact, often don't even see as an entitlement since it's just a reality of their day-to-day living. Often it is not until it is pointed out in various ways - sometimes passively, sometimes in more confrontational, less pleasant ways - that it becomes apparent. And depending upon the circumstances in which it is made apparent, that realization can be frustrating, painful and sometimes very difficult to embrace.

I think that may be one of the reasons that Melissa Harris-Perry's article has set off so much anger among some people. Much of the anger and pushback that I've seen involves a reaction to and resentment about Professor Harris-Perry's analysis of the motives and behavior of some white people, as if speaking about whites as a group is inherently offensive and racist, especially when done so by a person who is presumed not to be a member of that group. However, other groups are frequently identified, singled out and analyzed without much of a kerfuffle. For example, black voters are regularly analyzed with broad judgments pronounced about our tendencies, motivations and political behavior. For the most part, except in the most egregious circumstances, we don't loudly object - perhaps because we're so used to being seen as a group, it's just not that jarring to us.

A while back on the first day of a law seminar that I taught, I conducted an experiment. I asked all of the black students to raise their hands. The 7 black students in the room raised their hands. I then asked the white students to raise their hands. The 15 white students in the class looked around in shock and it took quite a bit of coaxing on my part to get them to raise their hands. But they wanted to know why I was asking, why it mattered, what was I trying to do, what difference did it make, etc. I asked the black students how they felt about being asked to raise their hands and most of them just shrugged, with one saying, "Everybody in here knows I'm black. The whole world knows I'm black. That's the first thing most people figure out about me. So what's the big deal?"

But when I asked the white students how they felt about the question, several students said things along the lines of: "Because I don't define myself by my race, I really resented you singling me out because I'm white. I'm a person." The fact that I had also singled out the black students didn't seem to bother them - they just resented being identified by their race.

Another example - I once overheard a real estate agent tell a client, "You might not like that town so much because it's very ethnic. I'd rather show you this town because it doesn't have a high concentration of any group. It's all white."

I think this may be one of the reasons that it's been so difficult for some here to understand that when a black person (or anyone else) refers to the behavior and attitudes of some whites, we are not saying this applies to ALL white people. It has been extremely frustrating and extraordinarily perplexing to see over and over and over again how very clear language is consistently misinterpreted, to the point of absurdity. Whenever someone here says, "I have seen that some white liberals, etc.," invariably, the response from some is, "You are saying that all white people do so-and-so."

I really believe that some of this disconnect and inability to really hear and see what is being said is based upon an unfamiliarity with or discomfort with being identified as part of a racial group after a lifetime of being seen and treated as just one of the "people."

I don't present this observation as a value judgment or criticism of white folk. But I do think that it is relevant to this discussion. If one is not used to seeing themselves identified and analyzed as part of a racial group, it is probably very off-putting to have someone do it. But I urge people to step past that and listen to what people are actually saying.

[EffieBlack]

1. Great analysis - and dead on!

[hlthe2b]

2. I appreciate your thoughtful comment.

However, you do seem to recognize that women as a group (certainly those of certain age groups) have experienced their own share of bias and bigotry--certainly where they have come up against or competed against their male counterparts. Yet, your comments seem to lump Caucasian individuals all together. Or were you meaning to refer only to white males? Do you really think both Caucasian men and women are all part of one big "entitled" group? :shrug:


I ask this, not specifically to point the spotlight at you, but rather to point to a larger issue. I can not tell you how many younger women (and men) believe that the ERA or some equivalent was passed and that there can be no bias towards women. They pooh pooh the statistics documenting the exceedingly dismal inequities in pay that persist and the attitudes that suggest women do not deserve the same level of respect despite similar accomplishments. Not to mention the other overt aspects of societal sexism. Not to mention the overwhelming impact of classism based on relative poverty that spreads its malignant effects across all races and ethnicities.

I say this because while every "group"--certainly that of African Americans' experience-- is unique, there are some commonalities among all the groups who have experienced bias and marginalization. Those commonalities would seemingly be the opportunity to move forward in terms of progress and shared understanding, rather than continue patterns of divisiveness that I fear we are too often stuck with.

[Empowerer]

4. It's very complicated, but yes, I do believe that whites as a group have great advantages

That doesn't mean that various subsets are all equal, however. White women, as you noted, face all manner of problems that white men do not.

By the same token, black women face obstacles that black men do not. And black men face challenges that black women do not. Some black men have advantages, by virtue of their gender, that white women do not have.

In other words, many of these problems overlap into different demographics. But, in my view, white Americans of both genders, for the most part, enjoy advantages that their counterparts of color do not.

And I definitely agree that we need to find common ground and empathy if we are going to make progress. That's why I posted this and other observations - I hope to help people see and understand and empathize with the perspective of different people and to be better able to understand and discuss these difficult issues.

[hlthe2b]

8. The focus on one aspect...

is to ignore those commonalities of experience that bring understanding. There are some major figures in history who clearly "got" this bigger picture. Those who do work together to greater purpose. I think to the fact that women would not have even gotten the vote without some more enlightened males coming to their cause. I think of the Freedom Riders who included (among others) many Jewish members working to fight against segregation in the South. I think of those who let their own sexual orientation, or race, or ethnicity or gender not prevent their supporting the GLBT community as they fought DADT, for marriage equality and other important issues. And certainly I think of the broad swath of America that worked so hard to elect President Barack Obama in 2008.

I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry, though I disagree with this specific analysis in terms of suggesting the reasoning behind white liberals' diminishing support of President Obama. I look forward to hearing her Friday debate with David Sirota, with whom I have vehemently disagreed on several previous occasions, but who brings an impressive grasp and analysis of political history. I do think the two will each bring very useful aspects to the larger discussion. I think she will use all of these broad ranging discussions across theNation.com and other forums to inform her future writings. I don't see how that can be a bad thing.

[Empowerer]

11. I agree that that's an important part of these conversations

Since we must always be aware of how people crossed lines and bridged gaps.

However, I add a caveat to that - sometimes those instances of reaching out are used to shut down discussions about very real problems. So. for example, the fact that some white people very admirably joined the civil rights movement, straight people step up in the fight for marriage equality, etc., are wonderful examples of where we all should be - but they do not obviate the need to expose and address continuing racism and homophobia in our society and to call out those who help to perpetuate it.

[hlthe2b]

14. I would agree, but also point out...

that falsely attributing racism for actions or changing attitudes of an individual or group is very deleterious. Not simply divisive, but causes very lingering animosities.

I think a great deal of the push back that this entire episode has incited, is not from those who discount racism as a very important continuing phenomenon, against which we must take all steps to counter. For many of those on the progressive left--who put their heart and soul into electing President Obama--to be be equated as a group with the horrendous racist (and even violently racist) attitudes of those we see daily coming from the Teabaggers and many other conservatives feels like a full throttle slap across the face. That's going to leave a mark...:shrug:

Racism exists. Prejudice exists in one degree or another in all of us. It is critical that we examine it and fight against it and remain vigilant to its insidious presence in politics and societal life. But the charge of "racism" against an individual or group must not be thrown lightly, nor cavalierly and without full consideration for alternate explanations--and for which there is considerable evidence. Dr. Harris-Perry failed to fully analyze this issue IMO,as underscored by her failure to note or even comment on the diminishing support among African Americans as well as white liberals--as but one example. A perusal of her other writings clearly shows thoughtful, evidence-based analysis to be her normal pattern. I don't see it here.

[frazzled]

3. I learned something about this when I was quite young

I don't know why this has stuck so clearly in my mind for nearly 50 years, but it has. When I was growing up, we had a very compelling rabbi in our reform temple whom we really looked up to. He was very involved in the civil rights movement, and, among other activities, had recently gone down to Selma to march with Dr. King. It was the Jewish holiday of Purim, in which children often dress in costumes and make noise to commemorate the liberation of the Jews from a Persian plot to do away with them thousands of years ago (don't ask!).

At any rate, we kids were having the Purim party at Sunday school and the rabbi came in to talk to us, and about liberation struggles and about the discrimination against groups of people, of which the Jews had certainly had their share over the millennia. But he admonished us on one thing. He said, yes, Jews face discrimination even today (there was still redlining and quotas back in the early sixties), but there was one way in which our situation differed from the plight of the African American (well, back in those days the term would have been "Negro") children. Our faces were white. No matter what the Negro child did, his face would always be black and he would be judged by that instead of his accomplishments or humanity.

What a jolt that statement was for me. I thought about it a lot as a kid and later. Even we Jewish kids, who didn't get to have Christmas and whose families barely spoke English and who wouldn't get into certain schools, were part of a privileged class: our skins looked white, and therefore we had nothing to complain about compared to our black friends and schoolmates, especially those in the deep South. We were taught about our (relative) privilege early on by this man, and I thanked him for it for a long time. It is no surprise to me now. It was how I recognized early on about the privilege of the "norm"--being heterosexual meant you could kiss in public and marry, no one thought twice about it. It was simply acceptable. Anything else was looked upon with great suspicion however.

[FrenchieCat]

15. In the Black Community, what you are suggesting is what we call.....

the ability to "clean up well" also known as the Eliza Doolittle advantage.

A white person is simply able to "clean up" in order to fit in wherever....although there may be some other work to do. While Black folks just don't have that as an advantage, period....because their skin, no matter how much is done remains the same. So one can take a White person who may come from the poorest of the poor and take a Black person that comes from the exact same background, and one simply has the advantage that with some training, they can "fit in".

This "Fair Lady" advantage shows up particularly in the judicial system, where appearance of the defendant can make quite a significant impact on a Jury...which is why an attorney worth his/her salt, will almost always counsel defendants in their manner of dress and carriage in the attempt to communicate a certain image that may win favor with the jury and even a judge.

No such luck for the Black folks, where the reverse is more likely true; that sometimes, no matter how far one has come in life, because of the Black skin, they are not always accorded similar treatment that would normally be given to someone White of similar accomplishments.

An example of this might be a Black college student who excels in academics, and who's SAT scores, as well as high school grades, advance placement tests and their extra curricular activities gets them accepted into a top 10 school school. I know from experience that there is a greater percentage of our society who would question whether that student got into the school due to their race rather than their academic qualifications. That is, without any evidence in hand, this Black student is judged by too many as someone who most likely got into the school based on the advantage of his or her skin color, without those doing the judging really knowing if this is the case. It is an assumption that is made wholly on the person's skin color, and the fact that some of the schools may have affirmative action programs to encourage diversity. The problem in the assumption made is that evidence apparently is not required, although there is a great possibility that the college kid actually did get into the school because of much more than his/her skin color. It is one example, but there are many others.

[Empowerer]

17. And some people will blame that wrong presumption on affirmative action rather than its real cause

How often have you heard affirmative action opponents claim that one of the reasons it should be ended is that it "stigmatizes" minorities, leading people to undermine their achievements - as if affirmative action is the reason for such prejudgments rather than bigotry.

In my experience, anyone who looks at a black person and assumes, without any rational basis, that they got the job or the school slot or the contract not because they earned it but because they benefitted from affirmative action would probably be just as likely to make negative assumptions about that person regardless the circumstances.

[CakeGrrl]

5. Judging from the fact that the MHP-related threads

have been kicking back up to the top for a few days now, I'd say it's a very hot button.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that racism is just a step away from many people.

I've seen DUers comment on relatives - siblings, parents, in-laws, grandparents - or friends who are racist and/or have said or done things based on racist attitudes.

And in a lot of cases, not just DU but elsewhere - I'm sure there is a lot of tolerance for the attitudes to the extent that relationships are still maintained with them rather than ostracizing or cutting them off altogether. Perhaps living with or accepting a certain level of racism creates some guilt or conflict as the racist relative or friend continues their behavior. Did Edith Bunker ever give Archie the boot? No. All she could muster was "Oh, Archie!" and go on.

[Empowerer]

6. That's a great point . . .

And to extend it a bit, I also think that some of this reaction is based upon a fear of being like those uglier elements - a fear that makes some people insist that they have absolutely no bias in their hearts whatsoever, a rather unrealistic and actually ridiculous claim, since we all have biases. But the refusal to even consider the possibility that one has any kind of racial prejudice - even though virtually all of us do - makes it impossible to address it and, thus, exacerbates and perpetuates the problem.

[OneGrassRoot]

36. What you say here sure hits home for me....

I grew up in a VERY racist, bigoted family...surrounded by other racist, bigoted families. Interestingly, two families -- in two different parts of the country, Pennsylvania and Alabama.

I recently severed all ties with them because I won't tolerate it from anyone any more. They are proud of their racism and bigotry, and it gets worse as everyone gets older.

I promised myself I won't be silent any more -- even though they long ago stopped making racist or bigoted comments TO ME. I know how they think and treat other people and how they speak to others of "like mind."

No more. I won't have people in my life who think like that and treat others that way -- dehumanizing others -- and are proud of doing so.

[CakeGrrl]

56. It has to be tough

when a family member with whom you otherwise might be fine forces you to make such a difficult decision because of the extremity of their behavior.

[OneGrassRoot]

60. I actually feel much freer...

I'm odd in many ways, not the least of which is my lack of loyalty to people because they're "family."

I decided at a very early age, due to certain circumstances, that I would not love or not love anyone simply because we happen to be related.

Their worldview and behavior has weighed on me for 40 years. The recent GOP debates shifted something in me. Anyone who refuses to denounce that behavior is not someone I want to have an ongoing relationship with.

That is now my line in the sand.

And my "family" is on the other side of that line. I'm really okay with that. Like I said, it's liberating to not have to battle with it any longer.

:)

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Nice analysis - but wrong.

Just as she was. First, she didn't refer to 'whites' as a group. She specifically narrowed it to 'white liberals'. So, she was never making a statement about whites in general.

She was making false analogies - this period in Clinton's first term compared to this period in Obama's first term, and those terms are significantly different.

While many liberals whites were uncomfortable with NAFTA at this point in Clinton's term, there was still the potential for the 'side agreements' to be worked out which would provide worker protections, environmental regulations, etc., which would have raised the costs of production in Mexico, thus keeping a certain degree of equilibrium between Mexican and American production. As it turned out, that never happened and NAFTA became the unmitigated disaster it is. Bad policy, but we didn't know it then.

Obama, OTOH, has the advantage of seeing what NAFTA did, he campaigned against it, saying it needed to be re-negotiated so as to reduce the inequity, thus also reducing illegal immigration besides. Knowing that, he now ignores NAFTA and presses for MORE free trade agreements.

Purely on POLICY, he fails. Not because we are judging him by a different standard, but because we are judging him by the SAME standard - by the end of Clinton's second term the effects of the NAFTA failure were clear, and white liberal repudiation of that policy (and many others) led white liberals to support Obama over Hillary in 2008. POLICY. Not race.

There are other issues, other policy failures, I could continue with, but it is the same argument. Obama is not losing white liberals because of race, but because of bad, Third Way/DLC policies.

[EffieBlack]

9. I think you missed the OP's point

The point is not that MHP referred to all whites but that she identified a group of people as white, which is often very hard for some white people to see past. While they are accustomed to seeing minorities identified as members of particular racial or ethnic groups, they are not used to be so identified themselves. For some people, this is so disconcerting and off-putting that they assume that they are being subjected to racism and they can't see past the identification to the actual point that's being made.

[Empowerer]

10. Please reread my post

As Effie said, I think you completely missed my point.

. . . I've seen involves a reaction to and resentment about Professor Harris-Perry's analysis of the motives and behavior of some white people

Among other things, my OP was not a discussion about or an invitation to rehash whether Harris-Perry's assertions were correct or not. I was simply noting that some of the anger about her column may have been the result of a certain discomfort with her specifically referencing and identifying a group of people as white, something that often makes some white people very uncomfortable for the reasons I noted.

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. Have you completely ignored what the jest of these threads have been about?

[Supersedeas]

87. these are important points of distinction if we are to have an honest discussion

[Enrique]

12. don't take this the wrong way, but...

I think you should consider whether you yourself is the one with the listening problem.

Your very carefully-written and fairly long post leaves out an important thing, any sign that you read any of the responses to Harris-Perry's piece. You don't even make a single reference to the responses, either here or at The Nation. Your OP could easily have been written without having read a single response to the article. And yet it claims to be an interpretation of those responses.

In this OP and in others I've seen from you, Empowerer, you seem to be suffering from prejudicial thinking. Not racial prejudice, but prejudice in the sense of coming to conclusions which aren't justified from evidence and not acknowledging the need for such evidence.

And I did read many of the responses and I can tell you, your analysis is off the mark, in my case certainly and in the bulk of the rest as well.

[Empowerer]

13. Yes, I've read numerous of the responses here and elsewhere

and, moreover, have spent years studying this issue in great depth.

It's interesting that you castigate me for not citing any specific response, yet your post challenging my position cites no responses or any other references.

Nevertheless, it's obvious that we simply don't agree about this issue. Let's just leave it at that.

[ProSense]

16. Wait

"You don't even make a single reference to the responses, either here or at The Nation...And I did read many of the responses and I can tell you, your analysis is off the mark, in my case certainly and in the bulk of the rest as well."

...are you actually trying to claim that citing specific responses wouldn't be dismissed?

[Enrique]

19. your response does not suffer from the same problem

your response was completely different. You didn't make broad interpretations without evidence, and in general you don't do that, in fact you are infamous for your links.

And you might have noticed that I agreed with you on one part of Sirota's column (even though I was the one that posted the column here and I thought it was fantastic). Sirota suggested that Clinton embraced liberal rhetoric more than Obama does, and I don't remember it that way. They both seem to use similar rhetoric to me.

[ProSense]

21. Maybe

"You didn't make broad interpretations without evidence, and in general you don't do that, in fact you are infamous for your links."

...because the intent of the OP was different. This OP was an observation not of the responses opposing Perry's point, but of the reaction to her having written the piece. The former is criticism of her opinion and the latter is criticism of her and her character. She was in some instances attacked simply for having the audacity to write the piece. She had a point, and it would have been good to discuss it on merit.

People do tend to attack offensive points and those who make them, but again, was her point offensive, and why?

[These Eyes]

18. Thank you for such an insightful post...

I must confess that the response to the MHP article, as well as the CBC speech has left me more than a litle tired. I have no patience for what appears to be willful ignorance, so I guess posting on Internet boards is not for me. But I will say this...

Right after 9/11, Americans, in a show of unity, love of country, and I am sure, some defiance, had American flags waving from everything --their homes, their cars, bridges, you name it. I remember standing on my front porch watching car after car drive by with a flag on it somewhere. I became overwhelmed with emotion. It was more than grief over the tremendous loss of life -- it was something I couldn't identify and it had been gnawing at me for over a week. Then i saw a black man drive by with a flag on his car and it hit me. I had no concept of what is was to identify as an American. Yes, I was born and raised here, as were my parents, and their parents, and their parents before them, but I never felt I belonged. I was not part of America, I just lived here. I grew up being treated as 'other'. I grew up feeling as 'other'. I called my sister to talk to her about what I was feeling, and she was feeling the same thing, too. The area we grew up in was predominately white. And we were constantly reminded that we were not one of 'them'.

Those who are turning themselves inside-out over the MHP article probably can't relate to anything I wrote. When you are a member of the dominate culture, there's no question where you belong. And there's no need to even try to understand anyone outside of the dominate culture. Liberals love to tout their tolerance for 'others'. But that doesn't mean they like 'others', they just put up with 'others'. Unless, of course, 'others' point out that some of the attitudes regarding race that are so clearly found among some white conservatives can be found among SOME white liberals.

[OneGrassRoot]

27. Thank you....

I hear you. And I really, really hope anyone who wants to respond to you in a negative way notes that you capitalized "SOME."

[Whisp]

20. wonderful read. K&R

[Whisp]

22. I think that some whites are uncomfortable being on

the receiving end of the microscope and grouped up like lab specimens. While this is pretty well how western culture has viewed minorities for so long, for the categorizers to be the ones categorized and dissected and looked upon with puzzle might be the thing that makes people nervous.

[hlthe2b]

24. Actually....

Dr. Harris-Perry's comment was about white liberals, not white people in general, Your point might apply in a more global context, but this is a somewhat different (and arguably more complicated) issue.

[Whisp]

28. still applies, imo. white liberal being a subset of white people

Would you look at this the same way with a subset of, for example, Black Liberals?

[hlthe2b]

33. Absolutely...

To suggest otherwise is really ridiculous. The more commonalities a group shares (e.g., African American Liberals or White Liberals--as opposed to all African Americans or all Caucasians) the more meaningful the categorization might be to any conclusions drawn.

I am really puzzled and dismayed that you would think otherwise.

If your goal is to sling broad-brush stroke accusations, then it obviously would not matter. I really don't think anyone on this forum is likely to feel that way. For any meaningful discussion one needs to accept that there are differences among people and within groups of people--even as you seek to identify meaningful trends or correlates to explain behavior. Ascribing the worst intentions, the worst attitudes, the worst of possible conclusions to the greatest amount of people, is, at best wrong and at worst a form of caustic bigotry that we are all supposed to want to move past. :shrug:

[Whisp]

35. you can say 'absolutely', but unless you live that White or that Black

you can't possibly absolutely understand the other. Especially if you are in the dominant white group that has had the reins of privilege over all other groups.
I thnk that is really what Perry is saying, what a lot of people are saying on this issue.

There are some shoes you just can't walk in, and if you can't walk in them, at least listen to the ones that do and don't get all defensive when you think you hear something you don't want to.

Now you know I don't mean you personally, I hope.

[hlthe2b]

37. There are commonalities that give some shared experience..

No of course no one can have an absolute understanding of the experience of others with whom they have not shared.

That said, bias is not limited to African Americans. Women, Latinos, Asians, the impoverished & homeless (of all races), the disabled, and many others frequently have experienced at least some commonality of experience to allow them to relate--however imperfect. Yet, you would seem to argue that all are so homogeneous for you to assume they think the same, they share the same prejudices and at the same level, and that they allow whatever prejudices they might have to inform their opinions and actions to the same degree and in the same manner. Can you not see how wrong that is?

And when I said "absolutely"in the previous posting subject line, I was addressing your earlier question: "Would you look at this the same way with a subset of, for example, Black Liberals?" And yes, absolutely I know as much as anyone can know themselves that I DO look at issues differently when asked about African Americans in general, versus a question about African American liberals. I would not automatically assume the answer to whatever question asked would necessarily be the same.

[OneGrassRoot]

38. hlthe2b, I am trying really hard to understand....

"Ascribing the worst intentions, the worst attitudes, the worst of possible conclusions to the greatest amount of people, is, at best wrong and at worst a form of caustic bigotry that we are all supposed to want to move past."


You are being so thoughtful and respectful, but I can tell this is very upsetting to you, and I -- as another white liberal -- am really trying to understand.

What I don't understand is how you (and others) are coming away from this discussion feeling that racism is being "ascribed to the greatest amount of people."

It's being ascribed to "some" people who are white liberals. Is it really coming down to how we're each interpreting the word "some"?

I see it as a definite minority within those who consider themselves "white liberals," but maybe others view "some" as somehow equating with the majority of people?

I wrote much more in response #34 in this thread, but I wanted to ask you very specifically if you could help me understand this aspect of the disagreement and discord.

Thanks. :)

Edit add that when I said above a "definite minority" -- the truth is I really have no idea. But, to me, even a few people within this group holding such views is reason for further discussion.

[hlthe2b]

39. I think you came in on the middle of the discussion...

My disagreement with the poster in the subthread that begins with post 22 is that they stated that they feel that there is no difference in the attitudes of All White people vis-a-vis race versus white liberals (i.e., all white people think about race the same and it informs their behaviors and attitudes the same). When I tried to correct the poster and remind them that MHP was referring specifically to white liberals and not to all white people (as you appear to be in agreement), they suggested it makes no difference.

This subthread begins and is limited to its scope of discussion to that beginning with post #22. My comments therein do reflect a response to the OP or the full breadth of the thread. I suspect the confusion I am sending your way may be that you thought I was responding within this narrow subthread to the larger issue. I am not and was being specific only to that one aspect, that one poster's comment.

Please try re-reading the subthread and see if it makes more sense to you. I hope it will.... :shrug:

[OneGrassRoot]

40. Oh my goodness, I really feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone...

:rofl:

:cry:


I had read the entire subthread before posting, hlthe2b. I just read it again. And again.

And I'm still horribly confused. It's my fault...I'm being dense. There is something about this that is just not sinking in.

I read what Whisp wrote and I didn't come away with the same interpretation you did at all.

:shrug:

I may have to accept that I won't understand the discord going on about this MHP piece. C'est la vie.

Thanks though. :)

[hlthe2b]

41. Maybe I could just ask...

Would you think all white people feel the same about race, share the same level of prejudice and allow that prejudice to inform their opinions to the same degree? I'd bet not.

Melissa Harris Perry clearly did not and that is why she was specific. Whether I agree with her assessment or not, she was restricting her comments to white liberals in an attempt to explain why they specifically are losing support for BO. Had she lumped all white voters together, I think the outcry (as loud as it might be currently) would have been overwhelming. Yet, Whisp genuinely and sincerely seems to be suggesting that the issue of race is homogeneous among white people--no matter whether their political outlook is the most liberal progressive, or if they were the most RW teabagger. It is that, with which I respectfully take issue.

I guess, I am feeling similarly "Twilight Zone" in that I don't seem to be able to convey that clearly to you... I'm not into Astrology, but don't they claim some planetary cycle causes this...;)

[OneGrassRoot]

42. Is there something Whisp wrote, other than #22 and the subsequent replies...

that gives you the impression Whisp is saying that?

I interpreted her comment in #22 as simply reaffirming what the OP said...that most white people aren't accustomed to being lumped together in a group and categorized, not that she was lumping them/us together as far as prejudice or issues of race at all.

I don't understand astrology either, but I'll use it to explain why I'm dense in this case.

;)

:hi:

[hlthe2b]

48. No group is likely to enjoy being "lumped together" as you say...

and as Whisp said, it may be less comfortable for many white people who are so accustomed to being in the minority.

I was simply reminding Whisp that the discomfort with respect to MHP's post somewhat different. While MHP clearly stated that she sought to explain belief and behavior specific to LIBERAL white people, she was, in essence broad-stroking racial attitudes across all white people to a specific analysis of white liberals--as though white liberals and RW teaparty members view race identically and act/share the same bias. Broad brush stereotyping to explain more specific belief patterns--when evidence strongly exist to the contrary-- is a problem. When questioned upon this specific point (as to whether it is appropriate to lump all white people together when examining political attitudes and the influence of race),Whisp reaffirmed their belief that it made no difference-- so that is the comment to which I responded elsewhere in the subthread)

While taken at face value and independent of MHP's essays, I have no disagreement with Whisp's comment. It is when they try to apply it to explain disagreement towards MHP's article that I take issue. Speaking only for myself, I have no problem with MHP's trying to categorize me as a white liberal. It is when she tries to abscribe to me and other white liberals the same patterns and magnitude of bias and racial bigotry-- shared by the most extreme elements of white America-- to explain why I and other strongly supporting Obama backers may have current disillusionment that I have issues. It is as though we are to believe that all criticism of Obama is off limits, even among those of us still struggling mightily to defend and support him (and to assure he returns to a second term). It is as though we were all young children, incapable of rational mature thought and letting some primordial race-based instinct influence our ability to analyze his performance.

Yes, race is a complex issue and racial attitudes will have detrimental impact--even as I am convinced they continue to change mightily over time. But as insidious and harmful as it can be, racial bias can not be the default answer to every issue and certainly not without cautious and thorough analysis of competing issues or evidence to the contrary-- something that Dr. Harris Perry neglected to do. If you look constantly and consistently for racial bias, you will often find it, but that alone does not establish "causality" (cause and effect). And purporting that to be the case without strong evidence of its validity is not only divisive, but carries tremendous risk of demoralizing the very people whose support is sorely needed. As an academician, Dr. Harris-Perry does not have to consider so strongly the impact of her writings. As an activist, I surely would hope that she would.

[OneGrassRoot]

49. Thank you so much for your patience....

I truly appreciate it. :)

I went back and read the original MHP piece again. When these blowups occur, and go off on so many different tangents, it's easy to lose sight of what set it off in the first place.

Would you say that it was this specific comment within MHP's original piece that is at issue?

"President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now. I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation."

If so, do you personally feel that if she had worded it slightly differently (say, "I believe some of the decline among white Americans, including liberal white Americans, can be attributed to their disappointment..."), that the reaction would have been much different?

I personally don't agree with MHP's point, as I've stated repeatedly. I believe the majority of people who are unhappy are unhappy for a multitude of reasons, nothing having to do with race.

However, as I've also said repeatedly, if MHP or anyone else truly feels that racism is an element in this equation-- however small -- it's deserving of respectful listening and respectful discussion about the issue of racism itself.

I realize people on DU are for the most part quite brilliant when it comes to history, current events, policy, etc.

But I feel we're missing the boat when we talk statistics and "proof" and such as it concerns this topic, because racism and bigotry affect people in ways that can't always be quantified. It's the acknowledgment that it exists in places we often don't speak of, and that it's wrong and harmful no matter how prevalent or rare it may be, that I think many are seeking. I don't see it as anyone assigning blame, but I acknowledge I'm interpreting many things about this situation differently than others.

Perspective and perception are everything.

[hlthe2b]

53. Hello again...

I added some edited comments to the last post, so would ask you to take a look.

As to that one line from MHP's essay, yes, it does cause me some concern. But frankly it is her response to the criticism and her kneejerk dismissal of Joan Walsh's cogent points (that she fails to address) as reflective of racist attitudes or at least race-based condescension (friend comment) that has really brought me full cycle. I have been and continue to be an admirer of Dr. Harris-Perry's previous commentaries and several of her academic publications. Originally, I read MHP's essay with interest, while remaining open to the view that for some there might have been unreasonable expectations towards BO. I still agree with that. But then she goes so much further in her rebuttal essay and in so doing avoids any evidence based analysis, but resorts only to emotional analysis based on a historical perspective of racism (which while valid in some contexts fails mightily as an explanation for white liberal disillusionment when African American support of Barack Obama has seen a similar major decline).

This failure to apply any evidence basis to the analysis is something that those most ardently in defense of race as the answer to Obama's difficulties among white liberals likewise continue to do. They have seemingly brought to bear every emotional issue with respect to race (and with which none of us are likely to disagree) to the table for discussion, but still refuse to address the specific issue at hand: does this largely explain white liberal's diminished support for President Obama? The issue isn't whether or not racism continues in this country... On that I would enthusiastically, though sadly agree. But, is it the explanation for white liberal America's current diminished support of President Obama? To say so, one has to at least address the obvious counter evidence, including the current diminished support among African Americans. I feel like screaming: what is the commonality between white liberals and African Americans (or Latinos, or Asians, or any other group) right now vis-a-vis the President? Why would we jump on racial bias when what is so obviously in common among all of us, is the suffocating fear emanating from this economy and the baffling confusion that comes from being told one thing while the administration pursues policies in seeming direct opposition--and which they themselves stated would only make things worse. One can look at the wars similarly... and on and on. Does anyone really think that economic insecurity and fear from that insecurity is not crossing all racial, ethnic and gender lines? How insultingly simplistic in that context to suggest that one man's skin color explains this permeating reaction. How ridiculous to suggest Clinton or Carter, or Truman or FDR would not have experienced similar had all things remained the same with only a substitution of the one for Barack Obama while pursuing identical policies, statements, positions and current political climate.

I continue to support President Obama and will work towards his reelection--just as I did in 2008--despite my own disappointment. However, while I gamely repeat all the same excuses I give myself for why he has chosen the change in policies and positions to others, as both Walsh (and some degree David Sirota) have pointed out, my disappointments are not without justification. Nor are those similar attitudes, concerns and fears of those who I will seek to influence, without basis. They are not emotional, nor attitudinal. They are rational. And I know that there are countless numbers of dedicated progressives who feel just like me. To discount our very real analysis of the situation as being simply (or largely) reflective of our in-born racial attitudes is not only condescending and insulting, but wrong.

I guess I need to step away from this... I know and sincerely acknowledge that the impacts of ancestral slavery and racial discrimination is a continuing source of pain and there is much left to accomplish in terms of true equality in this country. But I also remember with considerable sadness that my own dear grandmother refused throughout her life to ever discuss her own heritage--even with her very interested grandchildren. I have since researched enough to know that it was the impact and shame emanating from the violent death of her own grandfather-- in the midst of that deplorable 19th century period of Irish hatred, discrimination and retribution-- that forever changed her own father and was thus passed to her throughout her life. I suppose I might carry some of that own inexplicable shame and hurt, except that she carefully sheltered her children and grandchildren from the knowledge during our own formative years. I suppose that makes me more fortunate in a way, but not incapable of relating to the issue of hateful race-ethnic bigotry to some small degree. Regardless, I suspect that many "white people" may be capable of at least some degree of understanding--however limited and imperfect-- and thereby offer hope to make common change. It surely won't come without all being willing to extend considerable "benefit-of-the-doubt"...

[OneGrassRoot]

61. Please don't feel you need to reply....

Trust me, I realize how exhausting this is. I'm rather wiped out myself, as I'm having similar discussions in other places, beyond DU. Thank you once again for the eloquent reply.

I think I see where I am the "odd person out" as far as not reacting to MHP the way so many others have. I think by referring to what you wrote in this one section can help me explain:

"They have seemingly brought to bear every emotional issue with respect to race (and with which none of us are likely to disagree) to the table for discussion, but still refuse to address the specific issue at hand: does this largely explain white liberal's diminished support for President Obama?"


Whereas most people, rightfully, focused their full attention on that one question (indeed, it was the focus of MHP's article) -- "Does racism largely explain white liberal's diminished support for President Obama?" -- I didn't.

I didn't agree with the case MHP presented as far as the comparison between Clinton and Obama, nor do I agree that racism is a dominant reason white liberals not supporting Obama as much. And I also had a negative reaction to the "friend" retort.

But my disagree didn't lead to me having the same reaction others did. I think I made a huge leap...which I realize is usually unwise...and went beyond the focus of the article to what I felt was the REAL crux of the article: the state of race relations in the US, and how it's affecting politics and everything else.

And it IS an emotional issue which often can't be quantified. So my focus has NOT been on the one statement, "Does racism largely explain white liberal's diminished support for President Obama?"

My focus has been on the fact that the topic was raised at all, and that because it was raised, it deserves thoughtful discussion.

Thanks again. :)

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. Actually ...

MHP's comment was about a specific subset of SOME white liberal. There is a huge and complete difference.

And I would suggest that is a specific grievance of most of the Black posters on this whole topic are trying to raise ... that she was NOT referencing ALL white liberals, or even MOST white liberals.

But that is the point that (white) DUers, in their rush to defend, white liberalism seem to ignore.

[wndycty]

23. K&R

:kick:

[LittleBlue]

25. People who aren't racist don't like being called racists because they disagree

with what Obama has done with the mandate we gave him. That's my analysis.

[Whisp]

29. people who aren't racists just assume those accusations aren't about them.

not complicated at all.

But as some have said, we all have our prejudices and biases, so to be completely free of those would also be a fib.
We are talking about something a with a little more potency tho.

[EffieBlack]

30. Lots of people who ARE racist assume those accusations aren't about them either

Since, in my experience, most racists don't think they're racist. They think their views aren't based on bigotry but are instead rational conclusions based on objective facts.

[Whisp]

31. yes, of course you are right.

I will have to adjust that post,

[ThomCat]

62. That depends on how it is presented.

If people are racist they won't support Obama because of their racism.

but if people don't support Obama, that doesn't necessarily make them racist.

There has been an effort made to imply that people on the left who don't support Obama aren't supporting Obama because of racism that is present in people on the left.

i.e. If people are racist, the won't support Obama,
AND, if people don't support Obama, it is because they are racist.

This was posted in a way that clearly seemed to be meant to intimidate people. "Support Obama or you get smeared/outed as a racist. You can't object to anything he does for any other possible reason."

Throwing around the accusation of racism as a way of demanding loyalty within the party is a new and ugly way to demand support.

[emulatorloo]

26. Rec. Thanks for taking the time to write this.

[hulka38]

32. I think individuals, whatever color,

don't like being falsely accused of having significant racial bias. In this context, a negative reaction towards the accuser by the accused should be viewed as understandable and not evidence of guilt. The validity of Perry's accusations has everything to do with that feeling. As for the validity itself, post #7 says it well.

[OneGrassRoot]

34. I am learning so much in these discussions...

and I thank everyone who is engaging in a thoughtful way, even those with whom I strongly disagree.

Thank you for this very thought-provoking OP, Empowerer. I recognized myself in what you wrote; I could imagine being uncomfortable in your seminar when you conducted that experiment at one point in my life, especially when I was younger. I think there is a lot of truth in your words.

Several posts above have finally given me some insight as to why some people here (can I assume those who have reacted strongly are other white people on this board?) reacted so strongly, in a negative way, to what MHP wrote.

I'm white and liberal. I didn't take what MHP wrote personally whatsoever, and the reaction by others has confused me tremendously.

Let me state very clearly that I don't believe that those who took offense are racist to any degree just because they reacted negatively to MHP's words.

I don't doubt that, within the group of people who consider themselves white liberals, there are no doubt SOME -- it is my belief it's a definitive minority -- for whom racism, either consciously or not, is a factor in their reactions and decisions.

Many have written how the charge of racism -- without specific proof -- aimed at a group is very harmful, divisive, and leaves scars. That is the prevailing wisdom and why when the words racism and bigotry enter the conversation, the conversation usually ENDS.

I hear the concern and acknowledge that it is an extraordinarily difficult topic to discuss rationally. It's often a topic that can't be discussed with facts and figures -- feelings and personal experiences are what drive the issue. And those feelings and experiences need to be voiced and heard.

I agree that if a specific individual or a small handful of people are charged with racism or bigotry, without evidence of the same, that is a very, very harmful charge, one which -- if untrue -- would definitely cause lingering animosity.

However, in my opinion, when referring to a LARGE group of people ("white liberals") and saying that, within that large group of people, there are some who have these views -- given how institutionalized racism and bigotry are in this country -- that is a very, very different thing.

Do you feel this statement can possibly be true? "Every single American who is white and identifies as a liberal has no racist tendencies at all."

I don't. And because I don't believe that statement to be true, I believe we need to have this discussion...mainly to understand how racism affects people in ways we, as white people, can't imagine. Including racism and bigotry displayed by a small portion of a group of people.

Honestly, I don't think all the talk of proof and statistics and the comparisons between Obama and Clinton are really the issue here at all. It's about racism and bigotry in general and how pervasive they are in this country and how harmful they are. It affects every system imaginable, and politics -- regardless of political party -- is no different.

If I were a black person (or hispanic, or gay, or muslim, or whatever group of people have been marginalized and demoralized), I think I would be offended and frankly hurt by the inability of others to try to comprehend how harmful it is for even a few "white liberals" to be making decisions and forming opinions based on racism or bigotry -- especially if they're not even aware that's what they're doing. And I would be MOST offended by fellow liberals focusing on how offended THEY are, given their perception that they, personally, were unjustly lumped together in a group with unfair characterization, rather than focusing on the harm any amount of racism or bigotry cause others.

I wonder which is most harmful? To make a charge that some people within a group (again, NOT ALL and not even the majority) may be racists and bigots, thus making the others in the group who AREN'T, offended and upset? Or, to have racist and bigoted behavior by a small group of people ignored because they are encompassed within a large group that is not racist or bigoted?

Unless we can say unequivocally that there are no white liberals for whom racism and bigotry are an issue, we need to acknowledge the existence of it and deal with it, even if we can't pinpoint WHO the people are right here and now, rather than squelch discussion based on being offended and there being "no proof." Simply allowing ourselves to have this discussion can bring a lot of this into the light, imho.

I know I'm a broken record, but I feel so strongly that instead of getting all up in arms when the words racism or bigotry are mentioned -- and taking personal offense to the charge and thus stopping discussion about the ISSUES OF RACISM AND BIGOTRY THEMSELVES -- that's when the real conversation needs to begin.

Thanks for reading.



edit for typo

[eridani]

43. Plenty of white people are more concerned with the personality of a politician

--than with his/her policies. Perry is certainly not alone here. On that particular issue, I don't see a lot of black/white or male/female differences.

[OneGrassRoot]

44. ?

I agree.

Is this in response to my post? Sorry, it just seems to be coming out of left field.

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone all the time lately, so it could be just me.

;)

[eridani]

45. Maybe my post was in the wrong place

With these long threads, it's really hard to tell.

[OneGrassRoot]

47. No worries. :) n/t

[Karenina]

50. Ya know, OGR, it's the

"blanket denial" that sends me off the rails, make me wanna smack somebody into next week! "Snap out of it!" See: Cher. :rofl:

I've always been disappointed by the lack of traction Tim Wise has here. A white guy who gets it! Could I be more in love? Actually, I've met many who do (after disabling them with a frying pan and a sock JUST to get them to STFU and LISTEN). It's so disheartening to watch the testosterone-fueled slips and dodges strew our path with such nonsensical obstacles but such IS that power wielded by both men and women.

[OneGrassRoot]

51. Tim Wise is AWESOME.

I read a few of his essays today and look forward to reading the others. I'm sharing them far and wide, too.

:hug:

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter ...

I want to put one more another thing on our mind.

You stated: "Let me state very clearly that I don't believe that those who took offense are racist to any degree just because they reacted negatively to MHP's words."

I'm certain that most, if not all, Black folks posting here would agree with your assessment; but consider this ...

The problem I, and I suspect most Black posters, have with the DU response to MHP's comments are twofold: First, the hyperbolic nature of the the responses. Most of those objecting to MHP's commentary seem to ignore that she was referencing a specific subset of white liberalism, not the whole of white liberalism - she was very specific in her indictment. And by defending the whole of white liberalism, they include that subset of which she has correctly described.

Secondly, I (we) are concerned with the dismissive nature of their objections. How many posts have begun with, and concluded, that "MHP is wrong" . In making such declarations, those in opposition her opinion are necessarily declaring that their opinion is more valid/is of more worth, than MHP's.

I'm certain that those same posters making such declarations would be/are offended when the shoe is on the other foot. But more to the point, I'm here to tell you, this being dismissed is something that Black people have to deal with daily; but are rarely in a position to address out-right. And it is doubly hurtful when we are dismissed by Liberals ... a class of people who are supposed to know better.

[OneGrassRoot]

59. I hear you....

I really do. I can't say I understand everything, because we haven't had the same life experience, but I hear you.

As to your points, I agree wholeheartedly. As you may have seen me post repeatedly, I don't understand the responses either, with so many interpreting MHP's comments as a personal insult as though she was referring not only to them, but every single white person in America. I've tried but I cannot wrap my brain around that. I didn't interpret her words in that way.

Regarding your second point, I've noticed that same thing in general about many DUers -- about nearly every subject -- even more so than other message boards or social networking sites. Many of the people here tend to be well informed and quite intelligent, and very opinionated. ;) I don't know if many here would be as opinionated in their interactions in person, but when interacting here, many tend to state their opinions as fact, and believe anyone who doesn't see the same fact is an idiot.

I've noticed another thing specifically as it pertains to this MHP discussion. Call me all touchy-feely or whatnot but, to me, many of those who are responding to what MHP had to say, focusing on statistics and facts and "proof" and such, are missing the most significant point altogether. It's about how people feel...how racism and bigotry and all forms of social injustice make people feel, and how that informs their perception of everything.

I don't give a shit about the statistics and specifics MHB quoted; I don't give a shit about the responses quoting other statistics and facts that counter MHB's points. I don't even care about this as it pertains to politics or Obama specifically.

What I DO care about is that when anyone feels racism or bigotry is in play to ANY DEGREE, in any aspect of life, I want their voice to be heard, and then I want responses from people who have truly listened to also be heard. One can't quantify the effects of racism and bigotry with statistics and well-researched facts. We need to listen to what people are feeling and experiencing.

Feeling dismissed and silenced and demeaned on DU is something most of us have probably experienced at one time or another. When it's about a core issue such as racism or bigotry, it's especially upsetting.

DU can simply be very upsetting. :(

[jeff47]

66. But isn't MHP being just as dismissive?

Taking your points in reverse:

"Secondly, I (we) are concerned with the dismissive nature of their objections. How many posts have begun with, and concluded, that "MHP is wrong" . In making such declarations, those in opposition her opinion are necessarily declaring that their opinion is more valid/is of more worth, than MHP's."

MHP basically said you can ignore the objections from that set of white liberals because they're racists. MHP is being very dismissive of white liberal objections to Obama policies. While I'm not arguing "two wrongs make a right", being dismissive in the face of someone else being dismissive shouldn't be surprising.


"First, the hyperbolic nature of the the responses. Most of those objecting to MHP's commentary seem to ignore that she was referencing a specific subset of white liberalism, not the whole of white liberalism"

How do you identify which white liberals are the racists? The only measuring stick MHP used is complaints about Obama. While she went to great pains to try and say she's only talking about a small subset, she provided the characteristics of a much larger group.

A little like "those black people are bad". While it is only talking about a subgroup which may indeed be quite 'bad', the only characteristic given is 'black people'. I would expect a 'good' black person to feel like they were getting lumped in with the 'bad' set in that sentence. So why would it be strange for a white liberal to feel lumped in with the 'bad' set in MHP's case?



Are there white liberal racists? Probably. But nobody's provided good evidence that they are a significant source of complaints about Obama from white liberals. MHP's evidence via comparisons to Clinton is tenuous at best. For example, the DLC was new to power in Clinton's first term, and liberals were not aware of how bad it would become. Since Obama is a DLC-ish president, he going to face greater liberal objections because liberals have seen what the DLC has wrought.

A better way to measure 'white liberal racists' would be white liberals who voted against Obama in 2008. Presumably racists wouldn't vote for Obama. But that number is vanishingly small. So why stir up the racist pot when there's not much evidence that it's a significant source of complaints? It would seem the goal is to dismiss those complaints.

[OneGrassRoot]

70. Even if she was, or is perceived as having done so....

why stop the discussion?

Why not just disagree and encourage her to explain where she's coming from and why she has the viewpoint she has, rather than people saying, "She provides nothing to back up her claim. She's offended me. End of story."

Again, Jeff47, I'm not saying you personally.

But it's the flat-out halt to discussion that is what I find so disconcerting, and the rather dogged insistence that any discussion must include measurable data.

:shrug:

[jeff47]

75. Because arguing about angels dancing on the head of a pin doesn't make the economy any better.

But holding Obama accountable for his economic policies can.

[OneGrassRoot]

76. Fair enough. :) n/t

[jpgray]

46. Obama is to Clinton as Hoover is to Coolidge

In other words, for two of those presidents the standard is far higher, due to there being a present and all-encompassing economic disaster. The standard is lower for the other two, who enjoyed the seeming calm before the crisis.

There could also be a double standard on race, and that could easily drive criticism, but one could explain the difference in standards without racism. All that is necessary for harsher scrutiny and greater criticism is that people are loaded with more misery and have greater needs and expectations than they did previously.

We need more from Obama than we've needed from a president in seventy years, and though he is better than Clinton in many ways, though he were 1,000 times the president Clinton was, he would still probably attract more blame for failing to fix matters.

Were Clinton himself magically elected in '08, he'd face more criticism now than he did in '93-'01 because times are so much more desperate and people are so much more miserable.

[vaberella]

54. Excellent post, I agree 100%. I got nothing else to add. Thanks. n/t

[KeepItReal]

57. "I don't see color. People tell me I'm White. I'm cool with that."

- Stephen T. Colbert, DFA

[OneGrassRoot]

63. Interesting article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x629362

[jeff47]

64. I don't think it's nearly that complex

White person: I disagree with the Obama administration's _____, ______, ______ and ______.

H-P: Maybe you're racist.

Those blanks aren't really empty. There are actual objections. To assume it's mostly about race is to throw away those objections and attack the person making the objections. If H-P wanted to back up her thesis, she'd need to do more to demolish the substance of those objections.

Instead, to back up her thesis she's comparing objections to Obama's policies to a white president who governed to the left of Obama during an economic boom. There's an enormous number of differences between the situations, and to reduce it all to race seems like a massive dodge.

The anger isn't about thinking she's calling all white people racists. It's about yet another Obama defender throwing up a non-sequitur in order to deflect criticism of Obama. "You have complaints about the ACA? Well, maybe you're a racist. Now I don't have to defend the ACA, you have to prove you're not racist."

[OneGrassRoot]

65. I'm seeing both sides of this...

I'm seeing people who are reacting to this as you have said: "It's about yet another Obama defender throwing up a non-sequitur in order to deflect criticism of Obama."

But I'm also seeing just as many people shut down conversation about this topic altogether because the word "racism" was mentioned.

The only thing I can take away from this scenario is that people don't have any desire to have a discussion. It's all about proving how you're right, or challenging the other person to prove how they're right.

Very disheartening.

:(

(I don't mean you, personally, jeff47 :))



edit for typo

[jeff47]

67. That's the inherent nature of policy debate

If you think you are right on policy, you are going to argue that you are right and the others are wrong. That's not a bad thing.

In the long run, good policy survives such an onslaught, while bad policy gets dismissed.

In the short run, such arguments can not be settled. But they should be encouraged so better policy bubbles to the top. It doesn't mean people hate the guy with the other policy. It means they think he or she could do better.

These kinds of complaints and arguments are what should happen when your side is in power. Get out there and fight the good fight for what you believe. You just might convince someone.

[OneGrassRoot]

68. But that's just it: I definitely don't see this as a "policy debate"

And to reduce it to such is doing everyone a grave disservice.

But that is indeed what most people are doing, reducing it to facts and statistics and blah, blah, blah.

Something as insidious as racism and bigotry, which infects all of our systems in this country (and other countries, too), can't be quantified and reduced to statistics.

It does, however, need to be addressed and discussed, with people's feelings and experiences about it being truly heard, and the responses truly heard as well.

That's my opinion.

I'm definitely in the Twilight Zone as it concerns how things have evolved with the discussions here about this topic.

:(

[jeff47]

69. The complaints are part of a policy debate

IMO, the charge of racism is an attempt to influence that debate.

[OneGrassRoot]

71. Okay, I simply -- and obviously -- disagree. :) n/t

[Empowerer]

72. I think you're mischaracterizing Prof. Harris-Perry's point

Based on her experience - one shared by many, many African Americans - people have all sorts of reasons to take the political positions they take. While many people have valid, non-race-based rationale, many do make their decisions based on race, whether they admit it or not. But almost invariably, they do not acknowledge - and often aren"t even aware - that their decisions have any racial element - instead, they point to apparently color-blind reasons for their actions. So the fact that someone points to something that, on its face, seems innocuous as a rationale, does not mean that they are not actually holding someone to a higher standard.

I've had this experience throughout my career. I have often been held to a different, higher standard, have been accused of not measuring up when I was actually hitting the ball out of the park. When confronted with the double standard that was applied to me, those making the decisions ALWAYS had another, non-race-based reason for what they were doing.

Mind you, I don't think these people were "racist" in the pure sense of the word. They didn't hate black people, they didn't want to subjugate us, etc. But for various reasons, they had certain prejudices, biases and doubts about my abilities, notions that were instilled in them throughout their lives that they didn't even realize they had. If someone had told them they were prejudiced, they would have screamed bloody murder, much like some folks here do at the very thought that they might not be open-minded. And they always insisted - and probably usually believed - that any disparate treatment they imposed was based on something other than my race.

That is such a common thing that there is a term in the law for it - a "pretext" - and the law provides a specific approach for addressing it. For example, in civil rights cases, once the plaintiff makes their prima facie showing of disparate treatment, the defendant then has the opportunity to show that the disparate treatment had a non-discriminatory basis. Once the defendant does so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that the non-discriminatory justification is a "pretext" and that the disparate treatment was actually based on a prohibited factor (gender, race, disability, etc.). One does not need to prove intent - i.e., that the defendant disliked minorities, etc., only that they treated them differently and there was no rational business reason for doing so.

In this situation, it is as if Professor Harris-Perry said that a group of people within a larger group of people (not one individual - which is one of the reasons your analogy isn't quite correct) are applying a double standard to the President based on his race. Unless one can prove that every single person in that group is basing their conclusions on race-neutral factors, her argument as merit.

So, the assumption that she is calling individuals racist (and apparently some people here think she is attacking EVERY white progressive) is a false argument. And she's not insisting that people prove they're not racist. This isn't a court of law. If you aren't a racist, you aren't a racist. If you're not applying a double standard, you're not applying a double standard. You have nothing to prove.

But it is unfortunate that more people didn't stop to think for a minute about how they're approaching all of this, to do a little self-check just to be sure they're being fair and rational in their approach. I do it all the time. It would be nice if people stepped back and said, "Hmm. That's interesting. AM I applying a double standard?" If you think about it rationally and fairly and conclude that you're not, then you can figure she wasn't talking about you. But I don't understand the wailing and hand-wringing and accusations that she's calling all white progressives racist, something she did not do.

[OneGrassRoot]

73. So well said, yet again, Empowerer...

Might I suggest, however, that while "...many do make their decisions based on race, whether they admit it or not" -- often it's not even a matter of admitting it.

It's a matter of being AWARE of it in the first place.

Which is why I feel the discussion is so important.

[jeff47]

74. My objection is she is not showing that there is any pretext.

She's basing her analysis on comparisons to the Clinton administration. And I don't think that's a valid comparison for reasons that have nothing to do with race.

Just as one example, the DLC came to power with Clinton, so liberals were not aware of what damage they would cause. Now Obama's governing in a DLC manner. Liberals know better this time. That will result in a lot more resistance from liberals than Clinton faced in his first term.

My contention is that if Harris-Perry wants to claim racial bias, she should have some factual basis for that claim. As it is she might as well have compared Obama's first term to Truman's first term. The situations are vastly different, and she doesn't make any effort to correct for those differences before claiming bias.

This strikes me as an attempt to shut down the policy debate by getting a lot of people to talk about racism instead of policy disagreements. Show me some actual evidence of significant white liberal racism, and I'll be happy to discuss it. Otherwise, this is a distraction from holding Obama accountable for his policies.

[Empowerer]

77. If you disagree with her premise, why not just disagree with her premise and point out where you

think she's wrong?

Instead, people here have attacked her personally, accused her of all manner of wrongs, insisted that she personally insulted them, that SHE's a racist, that she's an ignorant, elitist charlatan with terrible motives. The over-the-top, vicious response to her has been, in my view, absolutely shocking.

You haven't gone this far, but you have questioned her motives, accusing her of attempting to shut down the policy debate. And, as has been noted several times in these discussions, "actual evidence of significant white liberal racism," is neither necessary nor even always possible in these conversations. This is a very subjective, personal issue that is often based on perceptions that can never be objectively proved. But we have offered up some proof of actual racism in these discussions and have been dismissed. In fact, in my experience on DU, regardless HOW much "actual evidence of significant racism" is produced, people STILL shout it down, offer pretexts and accuse the presenter of "playing the race card." In these conversations, the demand for such "evidence" is often a demand that can NEVER be satisfied.

She claimed racial bias and offered up the reasons that she believes it to be there. You don't agree. Some people agree with her. But there's no need for anyone to dismiss her perspective, impugn her motives and continue to insist that she wrote things that she did not write.

[jeff47]

78. So....lumping me in then?

So I'm now in the group conducting personal attacks? I'm one of "those people"?

And how is it ok for H-P to speculate on other people's motives, to the point of calling them racists, yet speculating on her motives is out of line?

"And, as has been noted several times in these discussions, "actual evidence of significant white liberal racism," is neither necessary nor even always possible in these conversations."

So we should just shout "racism!!!!" whenever two people of different race disagree on policy? There's no need to actually establish a reasonable basis for that claim?

"But there's no need for anyone to dismiss her perspective, impugn her motives and continue to insist that she wrote things that she did not write."

Yet she dismisses the perspective of white liberals, impugns their motives, and that's just hunky-dory?

"In fact, in my experience on DU, regardless HOW much "actual evidence of significant racism" is produced, people STILL shout it down"

Yep, we're all The Man(tm) keeping you down. :sarcasm:

The only evidence brought forth for significant racism among white liberals is to compare Clinton's first term to Obama's first term as if the only difference is the race of the two presidents. There is a long list of differences, from the difference in their campaigns to the state of the economy to Democratic centrists now having a track record. Yet H-P ignored those differences in order to attack other liberals.

So if I'm not allowed to speculate why, perhaps you could explain why you want to call some white liberals racist with evidence that is tenuous at best? What do you hope comes from attacking them knowing that you will be hurting white liberals who aren't racist? Especially when Obama's approval among liberals is _HIGHER_ than Clinton's?

[Empowerer]

79. If you read my post, you will see that I didn't lump you in with them

and, in fact, explicitly excluded you from those who behaved that way.

[OneGrassRoot]

80. This makes me so sad

Other than this part of your reply -- "And how is it ok for H-P to speculate on other people's motives, to the point of calling them racists, yet speculating on her motives is out of line?" -- your response makes me profoundly sad.

I say other than that one line because, in my opinion, you're right: You have every right to speculate about her motives. It would be helpful if you did so as part of ongoing respectful discussion.

It makes me profoundly sad because your response is indicative of the majority of others I've read.

I don't see MHP as attempting to shut down discussion about anything (although I respect others view it differently). Instead, what I see is the vast majority of people who disagree with her here at DU being the ones to shut down discussion, focusing on how offended they are rather than express a willingness to have a give-and-take regarding why they disagree. Joan Walsh replied respectfully, expressing her opinion. I haven't seen many here do the same. Instead, those offended are the ones screaming about playing the race card, shutting down ongoing discussion about this most important issue in our society.

Experiences of racism and bigotry can't be quantified and discussed in the context of statistics, yet the effects of both profoundly affect many people, including many here at DU.

Racism and bigotry both are a foundational aspects of what is wrong with most of our systems, imho, so the reaction to the request for ongoing dialogue here at DU has left me disappointed and really disheartened.

I realize no one gives a shit about how I feel, nor should they, as we have much bigger fish to fry. I'm simply expressing my thoughts about this whole thing as others are expressing theirs.

:(



edit for typo

[BzaDem]

81. I think many people are responding respectfully.

The over-the-top tirades in response to her piece do draw more attention and more anger and sometimes overshadow the many non-over-the-top comments.

I personally disagree with most of Obama's critics about most of their views about Obama, yet I do not think MHP made her case. Here is what I said elsewhere:

"I think Perry in at least one place is arguing with a straw man. Most of the criticisms of her piece focused on there being very plausible alternative explanations for Obama criticism. But that is very different than demanding proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" before even considering racism.

In other words, the standard does not need to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" for inferring racism (as Perry correctly points out) or ruling out racism as a factor (as many of her critics point out). But she goes after her critics as if they are advocating for the former standard, when they manifestly are not. Her critics are merely pointing out that one should not automatically assume racism when they see different treatment for different Presidents, when there are perfectly plausible (and in some cases likely) alternative reasons for such different treatment (or perhaps reasons why Perry is wrong about the treatment being really all that different).

In my view, while Obama's critics act like they are criticizing Obama and Obama alone, the substance of their criticisms apply to every modern President. I believe Perry underestimates the amount of liberal criticism past Presidents have received. I think there is a pattern of many liberal critics criticizing everyone, but then years later backing off that criticism of past presidents so that their criticism of the current President (Obama in this case) becomes more credible. I wish such liberal critics would be more up front about how their criticisms apply equally (if not moreso) to all past modern Presidents. But I do not accuse them of being closet racists to any degree, and I do not think Perry has adequately made her case in the piece she wrote here."

[OneGrassRoot]

83. I agree, BzaDem...

I agree that jeff47's post is respectful -- certainly more than some of the more emotionally charged ones -- but it's not a lack of respect in the replies that makes me sad. It's the seeming resistance to have ongoing discussion about the issues of racism and bigotry, because the focus instead veers toward them being offended by MHP's piece.

As I wrote elsewhere:

While I fully realize that no one wants to be overtly or subtly accused of being a racist or a bigot or anything else that is offensive which doesn't apply to them, I believe the last two days have proven rather definitively that, whenever anyone raises the issue of racism or bigotry and suggests that "some" people may be making decisions based on these factors (unknowingly at times), the overwhelming response is a defensive one.

Instead of discussing the matter itself -- the issues of racism and bigotry and how they are affecting all aspects of our society, including politics -- people shut down conversation because they incorrectly interpret the "some" as meaning "everyone," including them.

The person who suggests that racism or bigotry may be a factor isn't the one shutting down conversation. It's the people who refuse to discuss the issue further, including an ongoing conversation about why they disagree. Instead, the focus becomes how offended they are.

Racism and bigotry ARE part of our very real problems and lie at the heart of a multitude of issues and policies which perpetuate economic inequality and all types of social injustice.

For those so focused on "policy," please be mindful that these discussions about systemic racism and bigotry ARE pertinent to policy discussion, as they are foundational aspects of what is wrong with our system.

I also disagreed with the Obama-Clinton comparison aspect of what MHP wrote, which seemed to be the basis of why she feels racism may be in play with SOME white liberals who no longer support Obama, or don't support him as strongly. I believe there are many other reasons to be unhappy with Obama and that the comparison isn't valid, imho, for a variety of reasons. I also believe that most likely there is a small minority amongst "white liberals" who -- knowingly or unknowingly -- hold racist or bigoted views which inform their decisions.

I wish I could find what I wrote elsewhere about this (lol....because, like you and no doubt others, it's become exhausting to keep typing the same things in multiple threads...lol)...but this has been my point throughout this brouhaha:

Some have come away from MHP's piece with the impression that she is lumping all white liberals together, rather than "some" which is what she said, and are angry that the word racism was used at all, feeling it distracts from "policy" discussion. Therefore discussion about racism (and bigotry) itself simply stops. Instead it veers toward "proving it" and being offended to be "lumped together" and discussion of it STRICTLY as it applies to Obama, and yada, yada.

I'm evidently very odd in that I don't even see this as about Obama -- supporters or critics -- or policy. This issue is much, much bigger than that: Racism and bigotry are systemic problems. I came away from MHP's agreeing about the institutionalized racism part, yet disagreeing about her Obama-Clinton comparison (and agreeing with Walsh's reply in this regard), but was excited because it seemed we were finally going to have a CONVERSATION and start to learn about one another's perspectives on this matter.

For the conversation to be shut down because people disagree or are offended or whatever, that's the part that is disheartening. I don't see open discussion on here (or elsewhere) about how racism and bigotry do (or do not) affect people in this country; I see people saying the person using the word racism is trying to shut down criticism and thus discussion, and then they stay focused on being offended rather than deal with the focus itself: the prevalence of racism and bigotry in our society in general, and that there are at least some who consider themselves "white liberals" with racist or bigoted viewpoints, again, knowingly or unknowingly.

:(



edit for typo

[Empowerer]

84. Your eloquence on this issue is remarkable - I always look forward to reading

what your write - thank you very much for taking the time to do this.

[OneGrassRoot]

85. I feel the same about you, Empowerer...

Thank YOU so much. I truly appreciate the others who are continuing to engage about this issue in the various threads; it is time consuming and rather exhausting, but so very important.

:hug:

[Vinca]

82. What annoyed the heck out of me was much simpler.

I dislike the notion Democrats, like Republicans, are sheep. Many of us are more liberal than the current POTUS and whether he's black, white, green or plaid we're going to have our problems with his policies. If that bothers the author of that piece, it's her problem not mine.

[Major Hogwash]

86. The very fact that white people have it easier in America than black people can not be dismissed.

And it is not a policy difference whereas little 35-year old David Sirota is concerned.
He's been bashing Obama since Day One.

So, the fact that after a black woman defends a black President and then is called the "negative of the KKK" by a so-called journalist from the very same crappy internet-based web site does not surprise me in the slightest.