I don’t know how many BooTrib members are black. I suspect the number is very low. That impression holds for all the various left-wing blogs I normally visit. Christopher Rabb is an African-American blogger. I can’t be certain, but I believe he coined the term: ‘blogging while black’. He has some interesting things to say about racism, and the segregation of the blogosphere.
And speaking of colors, the term “racism” seems to have taken a back seat in the U.S. in recent years to “bias”, “discrimination” and “racial bigotry”. At the Institute on Politics, Democracy and the Internet conference in DC a few weeks ago — on a masochistic binge — I indulged the pendantry of the head (whose name I’ve not chosen to remember) of the Right’s MoveOn.org, better known as RightMarch.com.
After trying unsuccessfully to win me over to his anti-choice ideology by making an analogy between human fetuses and enslaved African-American adults of Antebellum Era America, he casually referred to “reverse-racism”. When I replied that I was not familiar with “reverse-racism”, he bristled a bit. I added, “I’m sorry. Are you referring to a time when a Black person acted in bigoted fashion?” Yes, he said semi-surprised/confused. I added again, “I didn’t know that’s what ‘reverse-racism’ was; I just thought that was being an asshole.”
He laughed, but saw in my look that there was more to my quip than I chose to verbalize.
That being said, I will not spare you the subtext of that exchange.
Christopher Rabb
:::read more:::
Interestingly, there is far more consensus on race between whites and people of color on the Right, then there is on the Left. Ironically, the white elite of the Right and Left seem to want the same thing: for people of color on their side of the political spectrum to talk about issues of race and diversity only through their eyes. Black, Brown and Yellow conservatives seem to be on message with very few exceptions; however many of us colored folk on the Left choose to be stakeholders in defining and distributing the message in its underlying values and assumptions.
We have built some amazing virtual silos so far, but virtually no navigable bridges to connect them. And until these silos are created within and by the communities in which they are built, are given the exposure and support they deserve from an array of people, organizations/institutions and media (within and without) AND commit to building secure and bridges link them to others, the Internet — and especially the blogosphere — will be vastly more segregated than the society we live in now.
The good news is that we are the authors of whatever collective destiny we choose to set for ourselves. And if this prospect emboldens you, then it is incumbent upon all of us to lead by example and now cower from constructive criticism, awkwardness and informed dissent.
This is not only the challenge for the “A-List bloggers’; this is the opportunity for 21st century America to shrug off the malaise of a half-century of desegration and commit itself to a level of inclusion and integration this country has never really known.
The most glaring fault of the new left-wing blogging revolution is it’s overwheming whiteness. This is probably a simple socio-economic phenomenon. But, that makes it all the more incumbent that we reach out and find minority activists, and invite them to the party. We need to support their blogs. We need to link to their blogs and discuss the issues they think are important. We need to push for more internet access in schools, and community centers.
We cannot be an honest leftist community that represents the full spectrum of the American left, if we fail to do so.
One way for anyone who is white to get a very good idea of what goes on in Black America is to subscribe to the Black Commentator newsletter. I get this at my email address and I find it incredibly interesting and informative and it’s free which is the best part.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/ I just linked to this yesterday as a matter of fact on the Daily Pulse I believe mentioning that there is some incredible art work there that I wish I could afford.
Reading that and also their letters to editor might be a good way to start to make some contact and reach out to people there or make them aware of your site, Booman.
When a white person in a position of authority maligns, discriminates, mistreats or in any other way abuses a black person, that’s bigotry/racism.
But, when a black person in a position of authority maligns, etc., a white person, that’s just “being an asshole”?
Language is so important because it shapes perceptions and I do believe in calling actions and attitudes by their proper names. Is Rabb suggesting that the labels “bigotry” and “racism” cannot be applied to people of color? That only white people can be thusly labeled? If so, then why does he resist the label “reverse-racism” to describe racist actions/attitudes given from blacks to whites?
I think he is making a different point.
My read is: when an individual acts like an asshole towards another person because of their race, that’s racism. But it is not the kind of racism that really concerns Rabb.
He is talking about institutional racism, depersonalized racism, structural racism.
That is the larger problem.
Vis-a-vis blogging, no one is actively preventing blacks from blogging, but their presence is underrepresented anyway, do to socio-economic factors.
At least that’s my take on it.
Notice that Rabb is not describing “a person in authority.” He is, as BooMan says, just describing people judging others and acting rudely toward each other because they don’t like or are prejudiced against someone of another race. That’s being an asshole regardless of who is doing it – equal opportunity racism.
But when a person with power abuses or limits the opportunity of another over whom they have power because they are bigoted against the race of the person with less power, that situation has the potential to cause much greater damage. This could, of course happen in either direction. However, the reality is that it is the white person who is more likely to be in the position of power and therefore, black people suffer disproportionately in these situations and run into this situation far more often than white people do.
Conservatives try to argue that these situations are equivalent. If they can find any instances of black people behaving as assholes under the first description, they cry “reverse racism!” and use that as an excuse for not addressing the “institutional racism, depersonalized racism, structural racism” that BooMan describes. They don’t want to address this type of racism, because they would have to give up their unfair advantages. Whenever a society gives unearned advantage to one group over another, the people without the advantages will always be more willing to upend the status quo than those who are benefiting from the current situation.
I’ll go further than BooMan did. I don’t believe that black antipathy toward whites is anything remotely resembling white racism toward blacks. One group has the power, one group has the history of doing the oppressing, while the other does not.
Sure, it would be great if we could get to that place Dr. King talked about, where whites and blacks could all hold hands and live in peace and harmony. But we’re not there yet, and we shouldn’t blame blacks for that.
Let me use an example. South Africa had severe institutionalised racism even more recently than the U.S. (though ours was still only forty years ago). If a black South African sees an affluent white South African driving a Mercedes, and grumbles some racially based insult, or even keys the Mercedes when the white guy’s not looking, is that really as bad as when a white South African makes some complaint about blacks (“they’re ruining the country” or what have you)? I think not. Sure, that white guy in the car may be progressive, may have been agitating for the end of apartheid all his adult life–but I don’t blame the black guy for assuming otherwise, as the odds are on his side.
I’m not advocating for black antipathy toward whites (which I refuse to call “racism”, reverse or no). I’d applaud any black person who made an effort to rise above the temptation to hold a grudge. But I can’t condemn them without walking in their shoes, and I won’t abide seeing their understandable attitude conflated with racism.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
I don’t blame the black guy for assuming otherwise, as the odds are on his side.
I know this was a mistake. What you meant was you have more sympathy for a black person assuming racism in an Afrikaaner, than a white guy assuming stupidity, criminality, or some other stereotype about a black person
I don’t disagree with your paraphrase, but how was my statement a “mistake”?
Alan
Maverick Leftist
I shouldn’t put words in your mouth, my apologies.
What I meant was this:
I really doubt that you would not blame a black South African for assuming a white man driving a nice car was racist. That is the very behavior (no matter the odds of being correct) that goes by the name of prejudice.
If you follow up prejudice by keying a person’s car, you have moved from a sloppy thinking to criminal activity. I assume you do blame car-keyers for the resulting damage to cars.
Therefore, I presumed it not a true representation of your views.
Well, remember that I’m more of a revolutionary (in some ways) than you are. Of course officially I’m not encouraging illegal behaviour; wouldn’t that be illegal on my part or something? I just can’t say that I would get too worked up over such actions, or vote for a candidate who promised to expend much energy trying to catch this sort of vandal.
A keyed Mercedes is a small price to pay for the position of privilege whites have gotten to, partly from the fruits of black labour. And that’s aside from the punitive aspect for all the oppression, killing, etc.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
You may have noticed that it is not really possible for crusade fans to make a credible argument of moral high ground, whether in Iraq, Palestine, or wherever.
Nor can a rapist whose victim succeeds in biting his ear make a credible complaint that she did not fight fair.
Being the aggressor, whether in bomb and shoot war, or seizing slaves war, or imposing apartheid, or relegating people to serfdom, robs the aggressor of certain rhetorical chunks.
Anything the victim does is automatically self-defense.
They did not have a choice, and the aggressor did.
The more the aggressor “retaliates” against the self-defense, the deeper he sinks into his hole. He quite literally cannot win. The worst he can do is kill all his prey, and eat them, and what is he left with?
The victim, on the other hand, grows stronger and stronger from his resistance, but he loses something, too. He loses trust. After holding out his hand a few times and getting it choppped off, he is more likely to answer anything that looks like an extended hand with a blow from his own sword.
The truly tragic part is, no one can in good conscience suggest that he do otherwise. He will win the war, after losing many battles, but his scars will run deep, his wounds will ache whenever it rains.
I think Rabb makes a good point. There appears to be a definite preference on the part of many whites who consider themselves “left” for the reality of race issues in the US to conform to their expectations.
The preference is so strong that sometimes it can be perceived as a need, that it would be just too distressing for them to face, this seems most marked in the “but things are getting better now, aren’t they? isn’t it good that you can ride in the front of the bus? what about all those minority elected officials? my supervisor is black!”
No one can deny that there have been some very visible race-related cosmetic changes in the US over the last half century or so, and they were hard-won, with blood and lives.
It is not, however, realistic to suppose that they are enough, that the problem is solved and the US is now a racial Utopia, nor is it realistic to suppose that a culture grounded in centuries of slavery and legalized apartheid make a 180 degree turn in the space of a generation or two.
Just as the reasons for slavery were economic (rich men wanted more money) so are the reasons for the economic conditions that ever more closely mimic slavery conditions – and not just for non-whites! Rich men continue to want more money.
Minorities are dramatically over-represented in the growing numbers of the poor, and the real social change that has taken place is that they are less likely to be satisfied and grateful to be able to ride in the front of the bus on the way to their Wal-Mart jobs.
During the 1960’s the Democratic party did toy briefly with the idea of a multicultural base, but has steadily backed away from that since, until today, neither party really has anything to offer the economically poor and politically disenfranchised, disenchanted and disengaged minority voter.
A Living Wage, medical treatment as a right and a service as opposed to a commercial product, a right to housing – these are all roads not taken, not seen as pragmatic – and for good reason – each would require corporations, on whom the politicians of both parties depend, and which ultimately, they serve, to accept a considerable reduction in revenue.
There is something of a reality gap between affluent and low income Americans on this issue, a reluctance on the part of mostly white, affluent voters to come to grips with the fact that a living wage means just that – a wage that can be lived on, and that health care means health care – not another push peas around the plate plan to give more to the insurance companies. Poor people do not have any money to give to the insurance companies. Not 3 thousand dollars, not 300 dollars. If they have 300 dollars they will probably put it toward the rent, and still come up short.
And of course a corresponding annoyance, to be polite about it, on the part of minority mostly non-voters, whose interest in the exciting aspirations of another white millionaire to become even richer, while they struggle to stay in housing and keep the lights on, is somewhat limited.
Even if he is a really good listener and black people love him, unless he plans on being Hugo Chavez about it, implementing a living wage, etc by executive decree if need be, his wonderful innovative plans for saving them up to a thousand dollars a year on health insurance and promises of two dollars more an hour over the next couple of years just do not generate that much excitement among a population whose income is roughly half what rent costs, if they are lucky and work 80 hours a week.
As you can see, it is not really possible to talk much about race in the US without talking about economics, which brings up another issue often overlooked by whites.
No minority is a monolith. Affluent people of any race tend to have more concerns in common than the poor of any race, which is in a way very unfair to white politically active people who meet these wonderful ethnic people at their local wine and cheese and consciously or not, attempt to project that person’s opinions onto the guy who washed their lunch dishes or sold them their morning coffee at the convenience store.
White racism is so deeply ingrained that most people do not even realize its presence, which of itself inhibits both dialogue and understanding, even among the most amenable to both.
There is also the small matter of the giant elephant of global demographics. Non-whites tend to shy away from bringing this up, because it seems rude, somehow, but it is an undeniable fact. White people comprise around 15% and falling of the world’s population.
One of my favorite anecdotes: a few years ago, at a seminar on this subject, a young woman expressed concern that she would not be able to pass her yellow hair and blue eyes on to her grandchildren. The wise old speaker smiled, and told her that no, she would not, but she would be able to pass on her green thumb, and if she had the choice, would she not choose the thumb anyway?
Whites whose “traits” survive will not those who flail helpless wings, mothlike, against the twin gentle zephyrs of Mendel and Math, but those who, quite literally, embrace diversity. 🙂
(the best way to show support for the brevity-challenged among us is by reading more)
to steer this discussion toward the real problem of economic disparity. Money and power have more effect than the color of anyone’s skin or ethnic pedigree. I marched beside Andrew Young at Selma and I thought I would die when I read that he literally embraced Dubya at the Atlanta Convention Center before the election. Guess he wants an embassy post or something. Clearly he felt a kinship with that rich bastard that surpassed his allegience to his racial identity.
As for your anecdote: One of the most beautiful people I’ve ever seen had coffee-colored skin, pale blue eyes and naturally white-blonde kinky hair. He was a stunner!
In the late 70’s Andrew Young was an “icon” of sorts.
You bring up a very good point that many people of all races tend to forget, and the young may not know.
The leaders of the civil rights movement in the 60s were for the most part, the “black middle class,” that is, they were students and graduates of what back then were called “Negro colleges,” many of which tended to overcompensate just a touch on the refinement and culture aspect of things, and many were the children of similarly educated and “elevated” parents. Dr. King, for instance, was a pastor’s son, who married a Spellman girl from a fine old family. (Spellman in those days was kind of like Vassar was for white people, and you can still find old folks in the south who will joke about Mrs. King’s ‘Spellman accent’.)
The mother of the Bond brothers, Julian and James, was, but for her skin tone, indistinguishable from the snowiest and most genteel southern white lady you could find. Their father was a college professor, and I believe her father was too.
While those early heroes were undoubtedly just as concerned with the plight of the poorest and most humble sharecropper, as time has gone on, and the economic gaps have grown wider, there are divisions even within the Old Guard of the “movement” itself, as well as the SCLC.
Rosa Parks, or more accurately, her representatives, just sued Andre 3000.
While race and economics remain inextricably twined, in many ways, for many people, race IS economics; Oprah Winfrey would never be subject to unfriendly treatment in a ritzy department store (and if she were, she would probably buy its parent company that same afternoon) but Keshia from the projects would not even bother going into the store, not only does she have no hope of ever having the money to buy anything, she knows she would not be welcome, and is not likely to put herself through the hassle, and she knows the hassle is just as likely to come from an African American clerk as a white one…
This is one of my biggest problems with the democratic party in recent years is the extremely limited mentions of race when campaigning. Ignored for 4 years until it’s time to campaign again. One reason also that I liked John Edwards as he did mention it and the economic issue of poor people of all colors.
The institutionalized racism is still very powerful in so many places if not much more overt. Then again I live in place where just in the late 80’s we had KKK people passing out leaflets here in good old central CA. probably still do for all I know. I’m not sure why no one talks about this but for some reason it almost seems a taboo issue.
Believe it or not just two days ago a woman who lives in my little apt. complex used the term ‘the coloreds’…jesus christ I think my jaw just sorta dropped. People apparently still use this term. I’ve been thinking about it ever since and it’s just depressing.
I think we should invite Rabb here (if willing) and ask him what he means since there seems to be a difference of opinion.
The most glaring fault of the new left-wing blogging revolution is it’s overwheming whiteness.
I’ve watched the “minority” community slowly build an online presence dedicated to specific cultural groups since ’93 [the WELL was a very open place]. People representing every group imaginable started by using Gopher and Pine as tools to build their networks, databanks, and newsletteers. All of which was pre-Web. It hasn’t slowed down.
The true battle is between economic classes, not races. I have no identifiers to mark people online. You all look the same in print. Mind-to-mind, many-to-many, color, gender, and age-blind medium. I like that. I don’t know what the ethnic makeup of the blog-world is, but I doubt any group is underrepresented on the ‘net as a whole.
You doubt if any group is underrepresented online? I just don’t know where to begin. First of all, how about the group (which was the majority) who didn’t support Howard Dean (or Wesley Clark)? When I was a Gephardt supporter, for instance, I found almost no one else with me, even though he pulled decent numbers in national polls.
I’d say it’s pretty clear that every group besides college educated WASPS and Asian Americans is underrepresented online.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
I don’t know the percentage of identity/color of bloggers but here’s a quick test…picture a blogger…quick now what color and gender did you picture that person…? white? female? black? female? male? Indian, Asian what? I’d venture to say that most pictured a white male even if you aren’t white or male…but I’d be happy to be proved wrong.
Or maybe, both fish and fowl, with some mammal thrown in.
I am multi-racial, although I self identify as black, as it’s just simpler, and it doesn’t matter much to me what culture/ethnicity people view me as. Mostly, I blog while Nanette ;).
Unlike what seems like most Americans of any color, I had the advantage of a truly multicultural/internationalist upbringing. Our home, when I was a kid, was like a mini United Nations… my mother’s friends… not acquaintances, were from all over the world… they and their families were in and out of our house, and we theirs, all the time. Consequently, I had no idea that there was a difference in people, as to me an Indonesian or Irish face was just as much a loved part of my family circle as an African or Mexican face. Sometimes I am not sure if this was a good thing, as the result is that I just do not at all understand racism, or separatism, and it can still shock me when I come across it in unexpected places (like from the left).
Anyway, the point that interests me most in Rabb’s post is this one:
We have built some amazing virtual silos so far, but virtually no navigable bridges to connect them.
I think that is true, not only with the racial aspects, but for all the other unconnected tendrils of the left side of the aisle. Although it is changing a bit now, where there is more cross connection between the various ‘interest groups’ and a combining of strategies and energy, I don’t think there is yet enough of it.
I need to read more stories like yours because from where I’m at it is a fairly repressive atmosphere(central Ca.) and I certainly wish everyone would have had your upbringing. No matter what anyone says racism is alive and well in most places unfortunately.
People here mention a persons race before any other definition and it is extremely depressing to me.
Oh, there is plenty of racism still out there, both institutional and just person to person. In fact, I would say that in some ways it is getting worse, in the US anyway, especially with the current crop of Republicans in the White House and Congress… people just seem so much more willing and open to express all sorts of hatreds.
I’ve definitely experienced racism, but I still don’t understand it. It seems just completely incomprehensible to me to base a like or dislike of someone on the color of their skin. And the effects can be devastating and very long lasting, as I’ve learned watching others struggle to overcome early racist training.
I think the most effective way to combat that is what my mother did… (and I do think it was a conscious effort, one which my brother and I thanked her for in later years, once we realized what she had done)… and that is to have people of different cultures actually within one’s home, as visitors and friends, and so on. I know so many people (of all colors) who socialize at work or at school with “others”, but their homebase socializing is homogenous.
That sends a message in itself, I think.
My sister and I seem to discuss this at least once a week, I guess because like you say it’s simply so incomprehensible to us. Just don’t get it, why people are so threatened or whatever by anyone who isn’t exactly like them(what the hell kind of fun is that).
It seems like the more cultures, colors and viewpoints you come into contact with the richer your life will be by far.
I’ve only experienced racism second hand by having black friends or through dating which got me called names(and harrassed by a cop also) and all kinds of truly ignorant ideas about what kind of person I must be because of that.
When I was younger and a lot stupider about the dynamics of prejudice I used to wish everyone would just intermarry and then we’d all be the same color. Of course I know realize that it isn’t that simple and some people are always going to find something to hate it seems no matter what.
I just realized my last sentence sounded like I meant people here on bootrib mentioned race and what I meant was here where I live.