African American
Related: About this forumWhy is discussing race on DU considered race-baiting?
Several times this week I have been accused of race baiting for discussing race. This used to be a purely right-wing tactic, but now the uber progressive DU, seems to have no issue taking up this argument. I find it deeply troubling
This was the context in which i was accused of race baiting
1. For stating that the base of the party are POC, women, and the LGBT (posted in GD P)
2. It's one thing for Obama to criticize BLM, it's another thing for random not-black people to do it. (posted in GD)
I really do not see how on a progressive message board either of these could/should be considered race baiting.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Seems to mean discussing race in a way that makes white people at all uncomfortable.
So you can discuss race so long as you, for a couple of examples, define racism in a way that eliminates almost all of it, or define it as "one person being mean to another person in some way connected to someone's race regardless of what race anyone is" instead of as a product of white supremacy.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Digital Puppy
(496 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Race baiting is almost always an accusation made by a white person against someone pointing out racism, or 99% of the time anyway.
You are simply not allowed to make white people uncomfortable, ever.
Not in America.
For the faint of heart, not all white people react this way, of course, but most do, even those who say they are liberal.
Kind of Blue
(8,709 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)We conclude first that the Court has ignored nearly a half century of substantial research in sociology and instead has clung to
outdated assumptions about how racism operates that perpetuate racial inequality. Second, we find that at the same time, the Court does invoke structural social understandingby ignoring intent, being attentive to group actions and effects on groups, and focusing on inadvertent effects of institutional policies and proceduresbut does so only to protect whites interests.
http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6473&context=lalrev
Number23
(24,544 posts)and start crap with black posters day after day toss that phrase around as easily as the word "the."
They seem deliciously oblivious to the fact that by using that phrase, they are saying more about themselves than they ever could about their targets.
katsy
(4,246 posts)1. The base is also young voting age people & working poor. So the mix is fairly broad & "big tent". To the extent we ignore any of these demographics hurts us. What if we ignore the voices of our future? The too young to vote... Think they'll remember? I do because I was there once.
IMO, we kicked labor to the curb so many times the party has lost too many voters there. We want, need labor & must do more to protect working people.
If the party is deaf to the voices of POC we're destroyed. Likewise for women & LGBTQ.
Which demographic do you think we can afford to lose? Is one more important than the other? is the base just POC, women & LGBTQ? Can we ignore the rest? I can see why Demicrats who don't fit into your definition of the Demicratic base may feel left out or offended.
Maybe our base transcends all ids except that they are in agreement with the democratic platform. You have link to the OP?
2. There is no sane, civilized universe in which one cannot critically examine a movement, an idea, association, govt, person, environment blah blah blah. Yes BLM can be criticized. Not by me because I support their movement and, more importantly, trust their methods thus far. Putting a higher value on a black person's opinion of BLM is your choice but you don't get to dictate who has a right to criticize BLM or not. You have the right to ignore their opinion. Others may weigh the critiques of BLM equally for all races. Some may only give credence to a black person's opinion of BLM. We aren't a fucking dictatorship where 1 person makes the rules and hands you what will be your opinion like it or not. So yes maybe it's race baiting to tell people their opinions aren't of value because of the color of their skin. Maybe it's just foolish to think you're the boss of valid opinions.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)i'm not here to rehash my arguments which i made on those thread, i'm here to ask why discussion of race is considered race baiting.
katsy
(4,246 posts)for anyone who's a part of community I would hope.
Using racial issues to derisively towards others I imagine is race baiting. It depends on perception and intent. Context matters. And I thought the 2nd op you noted could be construed as race baiting. Race isn't a qualification for the validity of anyone's opinions. People have a right to personal opinions without being scolded or derided for having opinions because of their race, beliefs or creed.
For example, I have cared as much about LGBTQ issues as I do for my own well-being all my life. Forever. My embrace of LGBTQ issues have been a part of me forever. Not dependent on me being LGBTQ. It's a part of me being human. Then my child came out this year. I didn't need my "better angels" to guide my opinions or because my child is bi or gay. I've always been who I am. An ally of LGBTQ. Same with my wanting to be a positive force in the POC community. I don't need to be a POC to be a positive force.
Everyone is free to ignore other people's opinions but the scolding is just combative where no quarrel is necessary.
I accept you feel that a white person's opinion of BLM is not valid. But to state it as fact is race baiting and hurtful. It's also not factual. It's your perception & something you should judge on a case by case basis.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)to be an ally, but when you dismiss race as a form of analysis as quickly as you did, you are not an ally.
race has always mattered and by wishing it away, it doesn't make it so.
i am not race baiting, i am questioning people who latch on to Obama's criticism to further their own existing biases.
Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #23)
Name removed Message auto-removed
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #27)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Digital Puppy
(496 posts)You come into a protective group and claim someone is race baiting??
Goodbye, troll.
katsy
(4,246 posts)I simply stated that race is not a prerequisite to having an opinion about BLM. The validity of anyone's opinion is a subjective judgment. And people tend to find justification for their opinions. Using PBO's to bolster their own preconceptions is not unusual or thoughtless on their part. It's normal when solidifying a position. It is derisive to say that PBO's is valid because he is black but not for you because you are white. That's what I thought was discussed in this op. If I'm wrong, I'll stop. But don't paint me with any broad brush for being wrong. Ill admit being wrong when I understand why. That's what a discussion is about unless you want an echo chamber to stoke your ego.
i did not attack you and would appreciate not being judged on what may be a statement not well thought out on my part. If so, apologies.
I opened a conversation only based on what was stated on your op. I haven't read the original thread as I don't have search option.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)there are several reasons why that could be. high among them is race.
is it possible for someone who has had a long term pro-black anti-racism history to question BLM, sure, but many are just posting Obama's criticism to back their existing prejudice. Hence, i have every right and reason to be suspicious of their posts.
katsy
(4,246 posts)I fully understand and agree with your explanation.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)before they throw words like race baiting to minorities, because chances are they do not know what the fuck they are talking about.
Number23
(24,544 posts)The latent knee jerk defensiveness inherent in this reply is exactly what the OP is calling out.
katsy
(4,246 posts)Knee jerk defensiveness? Calling that out? For what? It's human nature to defend your pov... Now we can't? I never would've thought that's what the op is about.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Again.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)you should do some introspection about race and privilege. why you think you can come in to a group and tell that group who is actually affected by race, why your POV is superior or at least equivalent to theirs.
BlueMTexpat
(15,349 posts)everything, but in the posts that I've seen where people have been accused of "race-baiting" and the accuser's "color" is known, those most often doing the accusing have been white. I realize that my experience is only anecdotal, but it also seems to be the case that so many who come to preach to AAs in this forum about one thing or another are also NOT AAs.
Full disclosure: I am not a POC, but I absolutely LOVE this group because there are some great people who post here!
And LLP, so far as I am concerned, YOU are NOT race-baiting and your posts make perfect sense.
It is a real shame that those who so loudly proclaim how "progressive" they are ... are so obviously not "progressive" by any objective measure of progress.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)over the years, i have become much stronger an ally. has partly to do with my research and teaching of race in america.
BlueMTexpat
(15,349 posts)a LOT from most posters in this group!
The Polack MSgt
(13,159 posts)That requires white people to reflect, it's race baiting.
If your words cause white folk discomfort, it's a racial attack.
Jeez, I thought that was obvious.
No. I won't stick a sarcasm tag on this.
OneGrassRoot
(22,917 posts)Unfortunately.
Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)First post at DU ever and it is used to identify a regular member of the AfAm Group as a race baiter - as a Group Host I had no choice.
ETA - Content of the Post for other Group Hosts
Dekan (1 post)
10. There's a difference between simply discussing race
And insinuating or making false accusations of racism, which is what people like you have been doing.
Also:
1) If you keep peddling this meme that POC, women and LGBT are the base of the party, whites (men and women) will eventually abandon you, and then where will you be? Just a party of failures. Do not alienate your most powerful and important allies. Listen to them and address their concerns.
2) No, it's not. It's the same thing. If BLM do something wrong, anyone has the right to call them out on it.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)so they dont have to examine their own biases is incredible
thanks
JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)His second post in LBN was directed at you as well.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)Her fans here are every bit as deranged as they are completely besotted with every single syllable that woman posts.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)Of the "white liberal". You know, not racist, not sexist, open-minded, all for the "people"
Examining this narrative disturbs the self image, as it is based on white complacency, really.
Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #15)
Name removed Message auto-removed
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'm guessing that it's simply a convenient way to discredit race as a topic of conversation and to deny those conversations from taking place at all.
I think one need only look at the posters consistently using the term, their regular posts on actual issues of race, and from that draw an obvious inference as to intent. Add to that the list of posters banned from posting in the AfAm group and there is a pretty clear indication of who is being purposefully deceitful in the discussions.
Again, just a guess on my part, but a guess that I fully believe to be accurate.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)if you make anyone who feels privileged and threatened they throw out the race baiting trap. It happened to me yesterday on facebook when I had a white woman accuse me of race baiting because her friend threatened to shoot my one remaining eye
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Digital Puppy
(496 posts)4139
(1,893 posts)If you disagree with someone and give them cake and Icecream they will call you evil.... If you agree with some and let out a whopper fart they'll say they admire your perfume
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)I dunno if they were the majority or not on the old site, but the old moderation system kept more of the stupid in check. Much of the recent vitriol is from Sanders supporters who are angry that blacks and POC didn't flock to his campaign in sufficient numbers to win the election. They have had sufficient numbers to game the jury system in favor of allowing horrible, racists statements that should not be allowed, and been able to alert-stalk some very strong DU AA voices into oblivion.
It has been a sad and pitiful sight.
One particularly memorable post accused a regular from this forum of race baiting because they posted a link to MLK's Letter to a Birmingham Jail. After I saw that, I realized that some of these people are DEEPLY ignorant about progressive politics and that ANYTHING goes now.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)this would never be allowed in the moderator days.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)brer cat
(24,402 posts)a matter of making white people uncomfortable. My experience is that too many whites want to control the conversation as well as define the terms. It is part of the white superiority that they deny ownership of, but there it is.
Slightly ot, but one of my pet peeves are the whites who absolutely MUST jump into any conversation regarding racism to express their "solutions" to the issue. I am adding a link here to an older but very good article about the Do's and Don't of Being an Ally. http://theangryblackwoman.com/2009/10/01/the-dos-and-donts-of-being-a-good-ally/
A few of the points:
3. Dont expect your feelings to be a priority in a discussion about X issue. Oftentimes people get off onto the tone argument because their feelings are hurt by the way a message was delivered. If you stand on someones foot and they tell you to get off? The correct response is not Ask nicely when you were in the wrong in the first place.
4. Do shut up and listen. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of listening to the people actually living X experience. There is nothing more obnoxious than someone (however well intentioned) coming into the spaces of a marginalized group and insisting that they absolutely have the solution even though theyve never had X experience. You can certainly make suggestions, but dont be surprised if those ideas arent well received because youve got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.
7. Dont expect a pass into safe spaces because you call yourself an ally. Youre not entitled to access as a result of not being an asshole. Sometimes it just isnt going to be about you or what you think you should happen. Your privilege didnt fall away when you became an ally, and there are intra-community conversations that need to take place away from the gaze of the privileged.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)to ask them to let me know if i was sucking up too much space as an ally
i totally agree with that allies need to not act as though they know more than the group that is actually affected. there were a lot of non-lgbt people who would go and on about how lgbt people need to act to win more straight support. it was annoying as fuck. just like it is when non-black people talk about blm.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)why discussing race with many RWers is considered race-baiting. Either...
-They are uncomfortable discussing the BS that Blacks and other minorities have to endure,
-They see issues of race/ethnicity as niches that should take back seats to issues that are more directly related to them, or
-They secretly want the racial/ethnic disparities to persist, but don't want to admit it bluntly.
MrScorpio
(73,626 posts)I found that race based stress can be triggered in some whites despite their political affiliation. If they're allegeding "race baiting," then you have clear clue that they're feeling that stress.
At this point, I consider that to be their problem, not mine. Frankly, the last thing that I want to deal with in discussions over race is hurt white feelings.
The key to avoiding race based stress is having a strong sense of self awareness of ones own degree of white privileges. White guilt isn't necessary, as those privileges are unearned and awarded at birth by dint of simply being born white.
White guilt is almost as counter-productive as denying that white privileges in our overtly white supremacist culture even exist.
Conflict occurs when certain whites undergo the experience of race based stress and they behave as if they're being personally attacked merely because they're white.
I look at discussions over race with white counterparts as a sort of litmus test, clarifying their own level of self awareness and if they're aware of both endemic and systematic American white supremacy in general or not. It's always good to assess one's white counterpart's level of comfort, candor and willingness for empathy when discussing race issues and proceed accordingly.
White people in this country must make a conscious effort to advance their own level of self awareness and savvy regarding racial hierarchy, biases, history and the black experience. Knowledge of that experience which is also free of negative, unfair and untrue stereotypes about black people, as well as being free from fear, hostility, contempt and suspicion of black people as well.
By the way, it's not the job of black people to drag whites along the way. White people must do this on their own. We, as their black and POC counterparts, should only provide encouragement and feedback regarding their progress.
It's a long, hard road to travel to self awareness and knowledge, but success can be achieved through hard work, sincerity and honesty.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Intersectionality and privilege is simply NOT TAUGHT outside a few specific academic institutions, and not talked about in the mainstream outside a few outlets. Most people just know the dictionary definition of racism, which is more personal and individualized (almost like it seems like it's *designed* to produce this response????).
So if I say "white privilege", it sounds to them like I'm PERSONALLY accusing them of being racist exploiters, when in reality the system is just set up to favor them more, even if their personal disadvantages overwhelm said privilege.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Here's an example:
http://www.discussionist.com/1016182266
JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)lib87
(535 posts)He wants to control the discussion about race with Black folk? And says Black folk have Black privilege? And believes he comes off sounding intelligent talking to Mr.Scorpio?
JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)I don't fit his image and I'd bet my wealth and lifestyle surpasses his. He's the person I fear in Trump Land. He probably believes if I'm out of his way he's entitled to my home and the items in it. Like how Nazis stole the homes of Jews who had actually earned what they had - regardless of how much or how little. The type.
lib87
(535 posts)Any minority or woman doing well probably make his blood pressure rise daily. You know, with all of our well documented and proven minority/woman privilege, power and influence.
I've known ibracist types throughout life and they can't help but place their feelings of failure on others instead of owning their personal shortfalls.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)used to tell us of how "if there is a war on women, they are winning" because his wife and his brothers' wives are earning more/doing better than he and his brothers.
He also told of (at least) two Blacks got HIS job that they had competed for. He even acknowledged that he had no idea the qualifications of those he was competing against ... just that he thought he was better qualified.
After reading this stuff, a couple times, I responded: "Ya know? Sometimes it really is about you."
There I was subjected to (what seemed like (months) of victimhood.
lib87
(535 posts)He couldn't even comprehend that even though the women of his family made more than the men that the women were still making less than the men in their field because they're women.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)impoverished. Their response bordered on anger.
It was a glorious day.
JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)I'm going to go with this :
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I know I was brought up with a substandard understanding of race, and I try to educate myself. But I can't imagine not ceding standing on discussions on racism to POC, and at least listening.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)xyz, i could buy that as an honest disagreement (although often an inaccurate one), but this is more like 'you can't even discuss race, because that would be race baiting' that's CRAY CRAY
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)We are a nation of cowards when it comes to race.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)but we don't really give a shit that much
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Haveadream
(1,630 posts)It is often used by whites to project what are actually their own biases on to AAs and other minorities. It is a defensive way to redirect the responsibility for the problem onto the victim(s) when the topic of discrimination comes up. Rather than address the injustice, the apologist misuses and redefines the phrase, "race baiting", a term originally used to describe dog whistles and fear mongering appeals to white supremacists. Whites now using it to describe PoC are coopting the meaning of a phrase that doesn't belong to them and in doing so, imply that there can even be such a thing as reverse racism. The whole "race baiting" narrative, as applied to PoC, is fraught with entitlement, appropriation, denial, projection and false equivalency.
It also serves as a huge signal that the person who uses it to challenge the existence of racism (in whatever context) is very likely guilty of being a participant in it. They protest too much. What are they afraid of? Having to address the issues at large? Or the ways in which they actively participate in promoting them? Likely both. They are essentially blaming the victims for "making" them feel guilty. If they haven't done anything to feel that way, that guilt isn't likely to come up. They are in effect, "owning it" by using the phrase in the first place. It is helpful when they do if only because it lets people know who is doing the talking and where they are coming from.
As to your point about PoC, women and LGBT being the reliable "base" of the party, it is pretty hard to argue with facts. The fact that white aka "working class" (that term now an offensive dog whistle) are sometimes part of the party base does not mean they are a demographic that can be relied upon in the same way. That reality is being exposed in this particular election as droves of white males are abandoning the party or co-signing with Trump. For anyone with a scintilla of sensitivity to racial injustice, the basis for that is obvious and those who are part of the exodus do not want to be called out. And for those who want to be seen as the "true base" of the party? Their challenges are coming from entitlement and a need to always be the one identified with the power, especially when they see that slipping away.
As far as BLM, anyone not at risk to be murdered and beaten by those who are paid to protect you, really need to get behind those who are.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)were so thoughtful and beautiful.
Quayblue
(1,045 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Or that a PoC discussing race is accused of playing the race card.
The expressions are used to minimize and even ridicule the seriousness of the concerns. It's the defense of people who are privileged but won't admit it.
MrScorpio
(73,626 posts)Sometimes, the only difference is the nomenclature.
Quayblue
(1,045 posts)so-called progressives deaded any idealistic forum
comradery ideas I had in my head after I joined here.
The term is used to bait people, then shut down discussion. After much reading here, I've gathered (lol) that some people are insulted when persons of color are dissatisfied and angry. Our anger seems to be dangerously potent in comparison to other expressions of discontent. Now why so...is probably why people are quick to shout "the baitings of the race!!1!". Full circle.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)absolutely unnecesary, debilitating and offensive.
I doubt you can even clearly define what you mean by the term.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)on people's lives.
just because race doesn't have clear biological underpinning doesn't mean it doesn't have clear social meaning and social consequence.
and race can be defined as a category of human beings that share some phenotypic similarities, such as skin color/ hair color and texture etc.
Gothmog
(144,005 posts)There are good reasons why the demographics are not working for Sanders and why many voters including some African American voters are not supporting Sanders. Demographics are important in that this explains one of the big divides between Sanders supporters and Clinton supporters. There is a vast difference in how Sanders supporters and Sanders view President Obama and how other Democrats view President Obama. I admit that I am impressed with the amount accomplished by President Obama in face of the stiff GOP opposition to every one of his proposals and I personally believe that President Obama has been a great President. It seems that this view colors who I am supporting in the primary http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-obama_us_56aa378de4b05e4e3703753a?utm_hp_ref=politics
On one side of this divide are activists and intellectuals who are ambivalent, disappointed or flat-out frustrated with what Obama has gotten done. They acknowledge what they consider modest achievements -- like helping some of the uninsured and preventing the Great Recession from becoming another Great Depression. But they are convinced that the president could have accomplished much more if only hed fought harder for his agenda and been less quick to compromise.
They dwell on the opportunities missed, like the lack of a public option in health care reform or the failure to break up the big banks. They want those things now -- and more. In Sanders, they are hearing a candidate who thinks the same way.
On the other side are partisans and thinkers who consider Obama's achievements substantial, even historic. They acknowledge that his victories were partial and his legislation flawed. This group recognizes that there are still millions of people struggling to find good jobs or pay their medical bills, and that the planet is still on a path to catastrophically high temperatures. But they see in the last seven years major advances in the liberal crusade to bolster economic security for the poor and middle class. They think the progress on climate change is real, and likely to beget more in the future.
It seems that many of the Sanders supporters hold a different view of President Obama which is also a leading reason why Sanders is not exciting African American voters. Again, it may be difficult for Sanders to appeal to African American voters when one of the premises of his campaign is that Sanders does not think that President Obama is a progressive or a good POTUS.
Again, I am not ashamed to admit that I like President Obama and think that he has accomplished a great deal which is why I do not mind Hillary Clinton promising to continue President Obama's legacy. There are valid reasons why many non-African American democrats (myself included) and many African American Democratic voters are not supporting Sanders.
I understand why Sanders supporters dislike talking about demographics but the fact remain that Sanders supporters tend to not like President Obama and that dislike affects the amount of support that Sanders is getting from certain demographic groups.