Crossposted at Shadow Blog for America
Holy talking, points, Batman, do I ever hate that expression! Ask any real questions about racial disparity, most recently in one’s chances of getting out of the hurricane ravaged Gulf Coast region alive, and you are accused of “playing the race card”. The phrase is supposed to function as a complete conversation ender. One is apparently supposed to stop dead in one’s tracks upon hearing those words, and not utter another word on the subject. “Oh, no! I’ve been accused of ‘playing the race card’. I’d better stop right now before Rush Limbaugh gets on the air and starts saying mean things about me!” Like “playing the blame game”. What is it with these people insisting on using such “playful” language to address something that is so deadly serious. At least the press is beginning to call talking points for what they are.
McClellan: We can engage in this blame-gaming going on and I think that’s what you’re getting —
Q: No, no. That’s a talking point, Scott. […]
Q: Is he confident…that he can secure the American people in the event of a major terrorist attack?
McClellan: We are securing the American people by staying on the offensive abroad and working to spread freedom and democracy in the Middle East.
Q: That’s a talking point. That’s a talking point.
Tell it, Q, whoever you are. And everyone else watching this should take note. You are not obligated to play by the rules of this Karl Rove-created game of pretend. Trying to dismiss calls for accountability, and the demand for an independent investigation of the Bush administration’s failure to protect Americans in the event of a catastrophe which, by Bush’s own admission, is bigger than 9/11, by using the words “blame game” is absolutely contemptible. It should be challenged, forcefully, whenever someone attempts it.
The same goes for people who accuse you of “playing the race card” when you make honest observations like Howard Dean did the other day at the National Baptist Convention. That expression is so maddening, I’ve been at a loss in figuring out how to respond to it. I asked Oscar, and he suggested:
Nonetheless, when someone pulls the race card card simply ask them if America is totally free of racism. Ask them if racism has to be overt, i.e. hurling the n-word at someone, in order for it to be racism. Ask them if a fundamental disconnect with people who are not like themselves can lead them to think of those others as something less than themselves. And then ask them if White Supremacy is limited to rednecks in sheets. If they answer any of those questions incorrectly then point them to the proper resources and tell them to go get a clue – in a kinder, gentler tone, of course. 🙂
I guess the tricky part is that, even people who don’t have an obvious political agenda, still have a real emotional and identity investment in thinking of America in a certain way. We’d like to think of the United States as the land of opportunity, where it doesn’t matter who your parents are–any kid can grow up to be president. It’s not too comfy to think that real racism and racial disparity still exist…especially if that involves recognizing it in yourself.
Most people in America know that racism is bad and that behaving in an overtly racist manner is frowned upon. So now we see more “symbolic racism”, which is not nearly as easy to call when you see it:
As a social phenomenon, racism is multifaceted and its manifestations are constantly changing. It can vary in its expression from institutionalized racism to symbolic racism. Historically, institutionalized racism was maintained by legal barriers that barred children of color from access to certain institutions. Now, society overall increasingly supports the principle of ethnic or racial equality, but often a set of moral abstractions and attitudinal predispositions are still maintained concerning how children of color ought to behave and what they deserve. Thus, symbolic racism persists–that is, the unspoken, covert, differential treatment of members of minority groups by members of the mainstream culture.16 Such symbolic racism is likely to take the form of providing fewer resources to institutions serving children of color and children of immigrants, and subjecting them to patronizing attitudes. These subtle manifestations of racism can permeate the daily interactions between these outsider children and those of the dominant culture.
The problem, of course, with “subtle manifestations”, is that they are not obvious to every observer. They can easily be attributed to other causes, and those with the discernment necessary to see that those causes are related to race, can be dismissed as paranoid, conspiracy theorists, “too sensitive”–take your pick.
The visual images in the wake of Hurricane Katrina have been hard to deny, though. They are anything but subtle…
So many photographs from the devastation of New Orleans show the same faces: Desperate. Grief-stricken. Black.
Those words come from an article in Atlanta Daily World, Black U.S. Lawmakers Angry About Federal Response To Hurricane. The same article addresses the more subtle way that race may affect reporting on the hurricane aftermath. Rep. Diane Watson and others address the significance of our choice of words:
Watson and others also took issue with the word “refugee” being used to describe hurricane victims.
“Refugee’ calls up to mind people that come from different lands and have to be taken care of. These are American citizens,” Watson said.
Added Rep. Elijah Cummings: “They are not refugees. I hate that word.”
Afri-Netizen expounds on the significance of using the word “refugee”…
It appears that only my more mature readers have understood that my beef with “refugee” is that it deflects from these largely poor and Black victims’ American-ness by focusing on their Otherness, a common device in a race-obsessed society where non-whites — and Blackfolk in particular — are demeaned and devalued not just physically, emotionally, culturally and economically — but linguistically.
C’mon, folks. Don’t lecture me about the Webster’s definition of the term refugee. Don’t insult the intelligence of millions us (of all backgrounds) who can read between the lines here and try to dismiss us as crackpot conspiracy-theorists or what-not simply because you’re uncomfortable when someone “injects” race into what you would like to think transcends race or is what I’ve heard alluded to (amidst unicorns and leprechauns) as “color-blindness”.
In other words, don’t relegate yourself to becoming a refugee from reality — a reality in which we acknowledge the racial megalomania that has deluged our country since its birth and the concomittant impact its had on what and how we think, say and do — consciously or not.
Words mean something. And they often mean much more than their precise dictionary definition. They “suggest” or “evoke” certain imagery and feelings. Like the way apologists for the Bush administration refer to “the blame game” and “playing the race card”–they are being intentionally dismissive when they use those words, and we can’t allow them to get away with it. We are not “playing”, but talking, asking questions, investigating, and (I hope) eventually taking action. And we’re quite serious about this.
or my sister’s favorite is that old standby, “Well Clinton did…”. Or how about you always blame Bush. The latest was “Look Lee Bush didn’t make the hurricane”. my response was of course not he just added to the death toll.
No, of course he didn’t create Hurricane Katrina… but history WILL record him as the chief architect of Lake George…
Well if anyone wants to get picky the headline from the Atlanta Daily is kinda crappy and I’ve been seeing similar all over the news this last week/half-‘Black US Lawmakers Angry…’..no one is putting up headlines like ‘White US Lawmakers Angry..’ as if somehow subtly implying Blacks are still separate so we have to have a division of Lawmakers by race who are angry..I’m probably not saying this well but I’m so goddamn angry I can’t see straight and I’m not black.
As for using phrases like ‘race card, blame game, the repukes really are masters at talking points that mean nothing but gets picked up by the MSM idiots(like Kyra Phillips) Which then deflects any serious discussions of said subject and ends up talking points about talking points.
‘Black US Lawmakers Angry…’..no one is putting up headlines like ‘White US Lawmakers Angry..’ as if somehow subtly implying Blacks are still separate so we have to have a division of Lawmakers by race who are angry
Good point. The reaction to this tragedy shouldn’t be couched in terms of race either.
Racism and bigotry are still alive and well. Four years after 9/11, many people are still afraid of Muslims and people who look different. The divides are deep and, despite tireless efforts to bridge those chasms, I wonder how much progress can really be claimed. Not much from what I can see…
Crossposted at Daily Kos, My Left Wing, Booman Tribune, and MyDD.
Look, why not take this stupid meme, and shove it down their throats?
I’m thinking something like this:
I’m serious, folks. Let’s put our heads together and come up with a full pack.
Lacking any creativity of my own, I did post your graphic and idea over at the Shadow Blog for America
http://shadowbfa.blogspot.com/
.
I have been surprised these numbers were released and so readily spread by bloggers all over the USA!
Is this a Rovian trick?
Any number less than 10,000 American deaths can be skewed as satisfactory rescue mission, it wasn’t so bad after all.
ABC News – Sep 05 11:30 AM
New Orleans Parish Residents Return Home; Mayor Says Hurricane Katrina Death Toll May Hit 10,000
[ABC News link not active – took a Reuters link instead – Oui]
▼ ▼ ▼
I heard it was 40,000 body bags, just for NO. If the other parts of Louisiana and Mississippi are included, it could be as high as 100,000.
Bingo.
I’ve been thinking along those lines for several days.
This is an excellent post, and very timely. But one thing bothers me, and that’s the term ‘symbolic racism.’ I haven’t read much of the literature on it, mostly because I’ve found other formulations more compelling.
But even the term seems ill-conceived. There’s nothing ‘symbolic’ about it–quite the opposite, it’s as if it’s symbolically not racist–what with Condi Rice and Colin Powell fronting it–and “only” in reality racist.
At the macro level of a general theory, the theoretically approach I find most compelling is Social Dominance Theory, in which race is a major element, along with gender, and age, but with some degree of possible flexibility. I find the work of Sidanius and Pratto (in Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression and in journal articles I’ve read) to be very compelling, and a powerful integration of different theoretical and empirical approaches. What’s most important from this approach is the articulation of how dominance structures persist, while particular forms and the rationalizations may change significantly.
At a more fine-textured level, dealing specifically with the form of racism dominant in America today, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s work, such as Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States seems to do a very good job of getting at the dynamics and making them plainly visible. I also think the term “colorblind racism” is particularly apt, as it directly confronts the “white” lie of colorblindness.
I also like the term I just sort of made up myself–third wave racism. With slavery being the first wave, and segregation the second. It’s good because it calls attention to itself, and is relatively easy to explain.
I know what you mean. It’s a term I remember from the intro psych book that I teach from some quarters, but rather than finding the book and copying the definition (I’ve done an awful lot of transcribing lately, and try to be lazy when I can) I tried to find something online about it. But what I found really didn’t fit the bill, I guess. In general, my understanding of symbolic racism is that it is expressed through concerns about “welfare cheats”, wanting to get more “tough on crime” etc.
So the modern day Archie Bunker can say, “Of course I’m not racist–I just don’t want anyone getting a handout” or some such thing.
Dispite their denials, I think they activly do want to stoke the flames of racial tensions. They play racial strife, homophobia, religion, and sexism every chance they get. It’s called divide and conquor. Anything to avoid class warfare. It’s how our rulers, the elite decendants of Anglo/Prussian/Zionist nobility stay in charge, by diverting accountability for their Imperialism onto the Irish, Italian and Polish working class.
Accusing Democrats and progressives of using “the race card” is about like the accusation of fomenting “class warfare” when we call attention to the gross unfairness of the recent tax cuts and the inheritance tax “reforms”. In effect, the Republicans are accusing us of doing what they have been and are doing all along the way.
I don’t mind the term “symbolic racism”, possibly because I’m a psychologist, and I’ve seen the terms used a great deal. It is just an attempt to capture the racism that is not out there on the surface. When you use the N word to refer to people, when you openly enslave people, make them walk in the street as opposed to the sidewalks, make them use different drinking fountains, go to different schools, etc., everyone sees racism, and no denying it.
However, the attitudes that generated those social rules and behaviors can and too often are still present when the overt segregation and dominance is no longer legal or tolerated or considered good behavior. It is in the use of code words like “crime”, “low morals”, when you mean people of a certain race. It’s in attacks on “lazy poor people on welfare”, and when asked to describe a typical poor person on welfare, a Black person is described.
Even in progressive blogs, only last night I read someone stating as fact (it isn’t) that most poor people were black (the largest number of poor in the U.S. are white). Two days ago, a college student in one of my classes stated as fact that most African Americans were on welfare, and did not work (again, these are not factually true). Both of the people making these statements would and did vehemently deny that they were racist in any way. They expressed great concern and sympathy for the plight of the poor and for people who are victims of racism. But they did not see the racist roots of some of their own beliefs.
The “disease” they have, if I may call it that, is symbolic racism. They hold beliefs, stereotypes, attitudes that are so ingrained that they do not perceive them as being different from those held by most people. This is different from being out front, actively hating and putting down people of different races. But these subtle expressions of racial stereotypes are condescending and demeaning most likely without any intention to be that way.
An even harder manifestation of this is in the tendency to think that “colorblindness” is the most desirable state. What this typically devolves to, is ignoring someone’s overt ethnic characteristics in favor of treating all people as if they were whites of anglo-saxon origin. I have a co-worker who has never mentioned race or ethnicity to his children, because it makes him very uncomfortable (he has told me this). When his children have noticed dark skin, or curly hair, or other physical features on a Black person that differ greatly from his family’s blond, blue-eyed characteristics, my co-worker diverts his kids attention by pointing to some other characteristic of the person, e.g. their dress, their shoes, etc. So he totally avoids skin color, for example. Well, his oldest child told me very seriously, that it is “not nice to notice people’s skin color, you shouldn’t ever talk about it. Oh, but it’s ok if [to talk about it] you are white.” Yes, that child has been very well taught symbolic racism. She has the lesson well-learned.
I asked the child how she thinks people with dark skin feel about that. “Bad”, she said. The child went on to add her own opinion: “It’s kind of sad if you were someone with dark skin, because you would make people uncomfortable.
I was sad for this perceptive child who was being taught a form of racial prejudice, and by a parent who would vehemently deny that he had any racist beliefs. Nonetheless, he clearly believes in the concept of “race” and “racial difference”, even though scientists in his own field largely reject the idea of a true biological foundation for the construct of race.
I’ve been trying yesterday and today to give people 4’s on this diary and I guess due to the server problem it just won’t do it..so everyone here consider yourselves ‘foured’.
I personally don’t think there can be enough discussions on race/racism, real discussions and not like GOP or Faux news talking points.
You can’t play the “race card” unless there really is a race card. Undoubtedly there is.
You can’t play the “blame game” unless there’s blame. If it didn’t stick, they’d be ignoring it. As Jon Stewart said,
“People who complain about a ‘blame game’ are to blame!” (Or something like that.)