Is the Stockholm Syndrome Claim Racist?

[Rebkeh]

~~ Admins, I wasn't sure if this was better in GD or GD-P so I posted in both. I will delete the inappropriate one if asked.~~

Yes. And No

I had hoped this issue would die and fade away quietly in DU, mainly because it does more harm than good. I have stayed out of the fray mostly because my conflicted take on it is so nuanced, it would get lost in the shuffle anyway. I saw no benefit to wading into the muck.

But, lo and behold – somebody resurrected it earlier this week. On the one hand, it’s troll fuel, used as bait to incite discord and it’s an excellent distraction from the issues. On the other hand, it’s a legitimate issue in need of discussion. I suppose it’s not going to go away until we work it out, so here’s hoping I can help put it to rest.

If a conversation follows from this OP, and it goes destructive, as opposed to constructive, I will either ask to have the thread locked or delete it altogether. I will not be party to yet another source of negativity and divisiveness at DU, there is enough of that already without my contribution. The issue has been used as a football by both sides, neither one fully comprehending what I see the issue to actually be about.

First, why it is not racist:

To use Occupy’s terms, it is against the 99%’s interests to vote for a supporter of the 1%. This is an indisputable fact regardless of race. Rather, it is against our ECONOMIC interests for the vast majority of us to vote for the handful of people pulling the strings. Where we go wrong is assuming that others' interests are the same, and in this case, economic.

But hold on.

We liberals and progressives are constantly saying that poor and working class republicans are bamboozled by the GOP and vote against their (economic) interests ALL THE TIME. I’d wager that every DU’er at one point or another has said this very thing about republicans, perhaps not by using the term Stockholm Syndrome, but the same sentiment. Be honest. God knows I have, and it’s a truth. They do hug their abusers close, protecting them. They cling to their abusers with their identity tied up in their rule over them. The abusers know full well how to manipulate their anxieties, mostly by using their racial ones.

Therefore, it follows that it is true here with the Stockholm Syndrome flap when people want to vote for what most of DU perceives as a 1%er democrat. The sick irony is that the racial anxiety is on the flip side now, but it still is being used to mask the truth about what the 1% is doing.

Now, as to why it is racist…

The intention of the Stockholm Syndrome claim is probably not racial at all, but it was tone deaf for sure. But it became a racial issue at DU because of the way it was handled by DU’ers that didn’t know what they were doing and didn’t fully understand the implications of what they were saying. So now, every time the issue is raised within the context of DU, it’s going to be a racialized. The impact (impact trumps intent, remember) of the claim is hurtful and destructive. It is VERY insulting to assume that everyone’s interests are the same as yours and if you come from a place of privilege, it’s an act of oppression to decide for someone with less privilege. It is patronizing and infantilizing. As a black woman, I can understand why being told by a white person, or by a man for that matter, that I don’t know what’s best for me and mine is triggering. No self respecting feminist is going to allow a man tell her how to vote, that he knows what is best for her, now would she? Even if he "didn't mean it that way." Ladies, this is just a taste of what it feels like, it's actually worse coming from a white person than a man.

Also, there is no guarantee that restoring economic justice for the masses will benefit black people and other poc, in fact, history suggests we would be left out altogether. So it makes sense to go with the candidate that has been speaking directly to you for twenty years, one who has (appeared to) have your back for so long. Even if she is lying about her true intentions, the safer bet is the person that has been there for you and with a lot at stake (not every black person is poor, yet another racist assumption), it’s just too risky. Mutual political interest keeps the unspoken agreement intact. Bernie is too new on the scene, loyalty is earned over a long time for people with a lot to lose. He just hasn’t been around long enough.

Where I divert from this stance is that the only way to get economic justice for anyone is to come together, work out the racial issues, form a coalition and demand equality. Sadly, Occupy failed in this regard and here we are with even less time needing to take a crash course in intersectional activism, and get solid with each other within a few short months. It is going to be very hard for white people to earn enough confidence of some black people. There simply isn’t enough time, but we have to try anyway. I wrote about this several times (links below*).

As for me personally, I don’t make much of a distinction between racial injustice for poc and economic injustice in America, they are directly related. Not everyone, black or white, holds this position, those who do tend to be on Bernie’s side.

Also notice that republicans respond to the similar claim by calling us elitists. Admittedly, there is some truth to that, it’s infantilizing to assume we know their interests - until they start complaining about the loss of job and economic security which is an indication of cognitive dissonance.

There you have it fellow DU’ers. I hope this brings clarity and understanding.

Some Bernie supporters see the same cognitive dissonance we all know from the republicans, some black Bernie supporters see a sick and ironic use of race as a cudgel to divide and conquer, and some black Clinton supporters see abject arrogance and confirmation of the Bernie Bro stereotype.

At least, that how it appears to me.

From where they stand – all of these people are correct. So let’s stop talking past each other and start talking with each other. Even if we don’t agree on who should be president.

I hope we can finally put this subject to rest.


* http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511397357

* http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511193813

Also worth reading:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027749969

[griffi94]

1. As a southerner I don't think it's racist

but I'm white so others POV could be different.

I think it is an ignorant and condescending statement in any case.

[Punkingal]

3. Welcome to DU!

[Lizzie Poppet]

4. Yeah, I'd only call it "racist" if someone was claiming it applied only to a single race.

Generally applied, the accusation of Stockholm Syndrome may or may not be valid...but it's not racist.

Personally, I think any non-1%'er voting for Hillary over Bernie is voting against their own self-interest...regardless of race, gender, etc...

Oh, and welcome!

[fun n serious]

6. Racism exist among Democrats. republicans. independents, and

all other party or non party affiliations. It's heavy in my liberal city of Portland OR. Gentrification. police brutality... No liberal politician here wants to address it. I hope to have an open bi partisan dialog about racism in our country.

[Punkingal]

5. Perhaps a definition of Stockholm Syndrome is in order:

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stockholm+syndrome