Can we PLEASE have a moratorium on playing the "You're playing the race card!" card?

[Empowerer]

For some reason, whenever anyone points out racial bias on this site, as sure as night follows day, some of our fellow DUers whip out their "You're playing the race card!" card.

Interestingly, the "You're playing the race card!" card players never seem concerned, for example, about "the political party card" when one of us challenges the pro-Republican bias that often leads the media to treat the President unfairly. And they don't lambaste anyone for playing the "class card" when we point out how certain politicians and commentators seem to have forgotten the majority of the population who don't belong to country clubs.

Yet, when we speak up about the obvious racial undertones to certain attacks against our President, people who are supposed to be on our side immediately try to shut down the discussion, often going so far as to defend the smears as nothing out of the ordinary in American politics. And then they whip out their "You're playing the race card!" card.

Talking about race isn't "playing the race card." Speaking up about racist language and attitudes is not "playing the race card." Trying to educate others about the continued threads of racism and bigotry that sadly, after all these years and all this progress, still weave through the fabric of our nation is not "playing the race card."

But trying to stop all conversation on this issue, attempting to shove these uncomfortable truths back into the closet where, although comfortably out of sight and temporarily out of mind, they won't disappear, but just fester and spread and contaminate, IS a tactic. This playing of the "You're playing the race card!" card is a destructive maneuver, far more dangerous and destructive than any honest conversation about race and racism in American life and politics can ever be.

So can we please stop with the "you're playing the race card!" card and start honestly discussing these issues?

[Go2Peace]

1. Sometimes Race is seen as a factor when it really is not

I hear this all the time on certain personalities on Democratic radio. Sure, there are a lot of Teabaggers that are racists, but the majority of the fights between the Republicans and Democrats is about the other things you mention.

Race *should* be brought up forcefully when there is truly racist rhetoric and activity. But the broad brush of making every argument seeming to have a hidden racial overtone is not really helpful. But yet it happens. I think some folks recognize that.

[EffieBlack]

3. Who made "every argument ... have a hidden racial overtone?"

You probably don't mean it that way, but I find your approach a little patronizing. What about it makes it "not really helpful" and to whom?

I agree 100% with Empowerer - for some reason, people feel very comfortable telling us that WE'RE wrong to bring up race when we do and go ever further to tell us that expressing our view makes it harder for everyone else.

I have not seen a "broad brush of making every argument seem to have a hidden racial overtone." In fact, I find just the opposite - that those who do bring up race in these discussions do it very surgically and very reservedly. On the other hand, those who, as Empowerer describes, play the race card card, seem to do it with the broadest of brushes WHENEVER the issue comes up. And, as I've noted elsewhere, those who do this tend to do it whenever the issue comes up, seeming unable or unwilling to EVER recognize the existence of racism. It's as if they're telling us, "I know it when I see it. Nope, this isn't it . . . Nope, this isn't it . . . Nope, this isn't it. I'll let you know when I do see it. In the meantime, please be quiet already."

[timeforpeace]

49. The RACISM! cry has become the new Godwin's Law corollary. Use it and you admit to having nothing

else, that you have lost the argument. And like Godwin's law, the likelihood of it being used in a discussion about President Obama's policies and actions or inaction approaches one hundred percent with time. It has become counterproductive and will be even more so when it's used to it's ultimate absurdity during the 2012 campaign.

[FrenchieCat]

56. Fuck Godwin's law.

You are welcome to hold an opinion,
but you aren't welcome to "tell us" what is happening,
cause truth be told, you are not an authority on any of this,
not even close.

[Uzybone]

2. some DUers are very uncomfortable talking about race

like Right wingers, they seem to think anytime someone mentions racism, they are playing the victim role. It happens way to often.

[EffieBlack]

4. Empowerer, my friend. You're going to take a lot of heat for this incisive analysis. But hang in

You're absolutely right and I appreciate your eloquence (not to mention your patience!)

Recommended.

[xultar]

5. Great Post.

[CBR]

6. K & R. I agree 100%. nt

[ProgressOnTheMove]

7. I only have said in the past to rephrase it to racial prejudice over racist as ..

once some people actually hear the word racist they switch off and no longer talk through what the issue was to begin with. We can say ugly racial prejudice if people find it too soft, but racist has too many combined connotations that folks can't discuss what their grievance is.

[Cirque du So-What]

8. Trite euphemisms like 'race card'

are often used with an alternate meaning of 'sit down and STFU!' Besides, I dislike the term because it's been used to imply that minority status is a 'crutch' - an 'entitlement' to receive preferential treatment. The term was first bandied about during the backlash that developed against affirmative action, and I despise seeing it thrown around casually on a Democratic board. If you want to get on my bad side right away, go ahead & use that term while conversing with me. I guarantee you won't enjoy the rest of our encounter.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Listen, you must get with the program.....

If you are Black and state that there is racism involved your opinion doesn't count, because you are clearly biased. :sarcasm:

What it really is supposed to mean is that you are just "looking" for an excuse as to why folks react so much more strongly than anyone would imagine was possible.....because racism only happens at other times, never when Black folks would suggest it is happening.

The reason that Tiger Woods was dogged out as no athlete anywhere ever for their lack of fidelity isn't because he is Black, they will say.....but it's because he's _________________________??


The reason that Rev. Wright was paraded around as though he was interchangeable with Barack Obama, and this parade was done for like a straight month, to the point that Barack Obama had to give a speech on racism, is not because they were both Black, it is because ___________________________ ??
(Ads on Rev. Wright could be seen up to election day playing over and over again....but not because the candidate running was Black, no of course not!)

The Reason that Michelle Obama was portrayed as an angry woman who wasn't "proud" of her country, is not because she was Black, it is because she is/was ________________________??


The reason that the Black Harvard Professor was arrested in his own home was not because he was Black, it was because he was ____________________________??


The reason that this President, when a candidate was asked about wearing a flag pin by those not wearing a flag pin, and no one with a microphone seemed to notice, wasn't because this President was Black, but because he was ______________________________??


Folks expected this President to clean up the mess left by the last President in just one year's time and are pissed at him (and have been pissed at him since day one) because he hasn't yet, is not because he's Black but because he's __________________________??


The reason that the losers of this election "hate" this President and don't believe that he is legitimate is not because this President is Black, it is because __________________________??


Same folks are protesting this President, but didn't bother to protest the last President. That is not because this President is Black, it is because _______________________________??


The Republicans feel compelled to make scenes at the SOTUS and yell out derogatory names when they have never done that before, is not because the President is Black, it is because ______________________________??


All hell broke loose when this President stated his opinion when asked about the Harvard professor arrested in his own house, not because the President is Black, but because _______________________??


They call this President a socialist, a communist, a Marxist, a Dictator, no based on any actually policies that has passed, none which are "radical", not because the President is Black, but because _______________________?? (of course, these are the same people will say he hasn't accomplished anything at all at the very same time)


So many People who say that this Brilliant President is an empty suit, is not because he isn't smart, and it's not because he is Black, it's because ______________________________??


The reason that some believed that this President shouldn't be going around calling congresspeople by their first name at a summit, is not because this president is Black, it is because __________________________________??


Some folks believe that this President is "arrogant" and call him so repeatily in the press and anywhere else they choose to, not because he is Black, but because _________________________??


Some people choose to ignore any of this President's accomplishments and insist that he has done nothing in the first 13 months, not because this President is Black, but because ______________________??


When a Black person somewhere ends up being accused of doing something bad, and some folks automaticaly worry about how this news might affect this President, it's not because this President is Black, it is because _________________________??


Hey, Chris Matthews said it best; he forgot for an entire whole hour that the President was Black...but he meant it in a good way they said, because it is good to forget that this President is Black....cause I guess being Black isn't really a good thing, and is worth forgetting, cause it makes things "better".

So no, nothing being done and said by those who are detractor of this President is because this President is Black, it is because of every other fucking reason on this planet that they can locate.....but of course, never because of his race. How could that be? That would then be racism...and as you know, we aren't a racist country anymore, cause look, we elected a Black President! i

[billh58]

10. +1000 n/t

[CBR]

11. What a fantastic post. +1000 nt

[Uzybone]

12. well said

they always say "racism exists, but not in this case or this case or this case...".

Unless they yell n*gger, then it can't be racist.

[Number23]

36. Frenchiecat, for this post, you win today's

Hell, you win the whole damn Internet for this.

That would then be racism...and as you know, we aren't a racist country anymore, cause look, we elected a Black President!

And don't forget, Democrats have never, EVER been racist or held a racist thought in their heads! That was something Hollywood or Mormons just made up to confuse people.

[Beartracks]

48. Am I reading this right?

Do you mean to say that in every case of criticism for which you have provided examples above, that the motivation for these criticisms is always racism rather than whatever might be filling in the big blanks? Or do mean the opposite?

[FrenchieCat]

52. I mean that one has to decide...and that is the precise point......

that one has to actually think about it.....
because oftentimes, it could be racism, but that is usually relegated to the last resort,
and every other reason palatable is to be accepted as to why certain things are said,
and certain attitudes are present in those occurences that makes some of us say.....
:wtf:

You see, oftentimes, when some of us have the temerity to give our opinion
as to what we think is at play in this particular Presidency;
when we question those "reasons" given for incidents as they occur,
then we are accused of playing the race card.

I believe that is the point of the OP.....
the fact that racism can always be excused away as something else,
and is rarely given credence as the real possibility is the issue
being discussed.

In addition, one can isolate each instance from another, i.e., have another reason
for every question I asked....
or one can actually accumulated incidents to perhaps gain a better view,
as to why some folks might be questioning if racism is not part of the
overall attitude that reigns....yes, even here at DU.

[proudohioan]

50. I have noticed a surge in racist comments....

made by people in my own neighborhood.

What is the matter with people? It's disgusting! And there's no attempt at even hiding it around here.

And the offenders seem to be mostly all of one particular ethnic group. I suppose they make these comments to me because they think that I belong to that ethnic group (I don't), and to my boyfriend because he just looks like a racist Republican (he's not, but what can I say?). My teenage sons are quick to point out the houses that they live in, "look Mom, racists live there!" where they proudly hang their national flag. I used to reprimand them for making broad generalizations like that, but anymore, I'm right there with them.

The sad thing is, that all of their hatred tends to breed more hatred. I am feeling my own hatred toward them myself. I find myself hesitating to eat in their restaurants. If there's a choice, I won't go to their checkout lanes in a store. If there's no choice, I have found myself actually being surly with the cashier (I am not normally a surly person). My boyfriend finally quit going out to his usual neighborhood bar on Friday evenings; he stated that he couldn't take anymore of their racist shit; they know better, and it's like they are intentionally trying to provoke him anymore. It's like this particular ethnic group feels like they have a license to hate, and spew their racist garbage whenever they feel like it. These assholes don't even TRY to show any modicum of political correctness! They will tell you that "blacks are coming over and trying to take over this country"...WTF???? It does no good when you point out that their ancestors have been in this country for one hell of a lot longer than than the particular ethnic groups ancestors. They just aren't about to listen to reason.

All of this really bothers me, not so much because of their racist attitudes and ignorance, but because I find myself developing hatred toward this ethnic group. Me, a woman with a college education, who was taught that racism was not to be tolerated, because that's how my parents were taught as well. My maternal grandfather was particularly adamant about not tolerating racism and hate, as he was taunted and shunned as a child for being a Ukrainian immigrant. I'm sure he was called all the usual derogatory names, but rather than turning to hate, he taught his family tolerance. Why, at the age of 48, am I regressing and stooping to the level of hatred and ignorance that I abhor? Why would a woman, who would never dream of using "the n word" (much less allow her kids to utter it), think it was OK to start using the typical derogatory term to describe this particular ethnic group? Why would a woman such as myself find it OK to start generalizing and stereotyping them, just as they do? Why? Because racist hatred breeds more hatred. And I'm falling prey to that kind of behavior and I don't like it one bit.

Sorry about the rant here; I guess I just needed to get this off my chest; maybe writing this out will help me get over my own anger and hatred of the racists? I don't know. I would have thought that having Obama in the White House would have forced everyone to get over it and move on. I honestly didn't think it would bring to the surface all of the hate that has been festering over them for so many years. Maybe I just need to chill, and just blow it off when I hear these racist comments, rather than try to argue a point with them.

Well anyhow, if you're still with me (this was way too long), thanx for letting me vent!

Oh, and by the way, I gotta disagree with you on one point; Tiger Woods. I don't think that one was racially motivated; IMO, it was the sport itself. Golf is just considered more boring and "squeaky clean" than baseball, football, hockey, basketball, etc.....







:) :)

[lunatica]

61. Yeah!

Your last two statements says it all

"When a Black person somewhere ends up being accused of doing something bad, and some folks automaticaly worry about how this news might affect this President, it's not because this President is Black, it is because _________________________??


Hey, Chris Matthews said it best; he forgot for an entire whole hour that the President was Black...but he meant it in a good way they said, because it is good to forget that this President is Black....cause I guess being Black isn't really a good thing, and is worth forgetting, cause it makes things "better"."

[MzShellG]

80. Thank you FrenchieCat!

It is what it is. No need to sugar coat it.

[angelicwoman]

13. I disagree. Not everyone agrees on the extent to which race plays a factor in our discourse

Some think racism is a huge problem that amounts to most of the criticism against Obama. Others think that wingnuts hate Democrats so much that they would savagely attack any white Democrat, too, even leaving racism aside.

I think we all agree racism exist and some people (no one knows how many) hate that we have a black President. But it's a matter of degree, like i said.

The creator of "death panels" made things up when Clinton was President, thus helping derail his health reform attempts. Could it be that right-wingers vow to derail health reform proposals by both black and white Democratic Presidents?

Also, we don't know whether Joe Wilson would have yelled "lie" at Bill Clinton, if he had been president this year, as Wilson was not in Congress during the 90's. We know he did not yell at Bush...but that was because Bush was a Republican.

At any rate, racism is undeniable. But are we ignoring the non-racist (and stupid) hatred out there?

[Empowerer]

15. Disagreeing is one thing. Accusing those who disagree of "playing the race card" is another

I certainly don't expect everyone to interpret every incident the same way. What I do object to is having mine and others' views dismissed, degraded and diminished as, not an honest, rational opinion, but as an attempt to invoke victimhood as a tactic for unfair advantage. So I'm calling that out for what it is. Expressing an opinion that race is behind certain words and actions isn't "playing the race card." But consistently accusing people of "playing the race card" in order to stomp on and invalidate such opinions is playing the "You're playing the race card" card and I'm calling it what it is.

[Hansel]

20. Amen. nt

[Better Today]

43. But apparently you don't have a problem with having those that disagree

with your racism assessment called racists, as is happening on this thread. Interesting, and hypocritical.

[Better Today]

14. No, quite simply we cannot. You see them as uncomfortable "truths"

whereas many of us see it as useless whining.

Obama knew his skin color going into this, he must have been acutely aware of the racism levels in the country. It is his job to deal with it, and he is, by all appearances handling it the way he wants. If he isn't screaming racism, then no one should on his behalf.

More importantly, no one cares if he's being treated in a racially discourteous way. . . what we care about is that he and the Congress get a few important things done. Those that are outraged by the perceived racism, will accomplish absolutely nothing by constantly pointing it out. Where as pointing out things like the Repub's insistence on blocking everything will expose something that if it changes, results are possible. Even if you or anyone else manages to shame those that you perceive as behaving racially into behaving differently, there will be no effect on legislation.

Lastly the only thing, imo, more insulting that veiled racism, is forced courtesy. Obama is in charge of this, if he wants others to treat him with respect, then he'll have to earn it, I guess. And to date, the Repubs have been slam dunking him right and left regarding his agenda(s), I understand their arrogance about the matter. And arrogance when displayed against a person of color is nearly always claimed as racism, even when it has nothing to do with race, but instead is a reflection of the power of those involved. Right now the Repubs rightly believe that they are in control, Obama sure seems more concerned with their desires than anyone else's. Until and unless he changes that, the arrogant ways might be racism veiled, or it might just be their power trip.

[CBR]

17. Well then I expect no other groups on this board to ever discuss

-isms directed their way ever when discussing persons in power. Hillary or other women, GLBT individuals -- no one.

[Better Today]

19. I'm sorry perhaps I misunderstood, but isn't it the OP that's trying to

limit discussions about isms to only those opinions that support such isms?

I'm saying, no we cannot limit those discussions to her POV because many of us disagree with that POV.

[CBR]

21. I am reacting to this statement...

"Obama knew his skin color going into this, he must have been acutely aware of the racism levels in the country. It is his job to deal with it, and he is, by all appearances handling it the way he wants. If he isn't screaming racism, then no one should on his behalf."

This can be said for other persons from disadvantaged groups when in positions of power. They cannot discuss it because the political insiders say it is "bad" or "dangerous" to discuss or point out the -ism directed their way. It is up to the rest of us to bring that discussion out and claiming that persons of color, or others, on this board are "whining" is, well...

I do not think the OP is trying to limit the debate. The OP is pointing out that the "race card" statement is in itself dismissive and condescending.

[Better Today]

25. Y'know I could see your point if we were talking about someone

who wasn't the "Leader of the Free World," as the president is. I'm sorry if I don't have the appropriate level of worry about whether or not the disrespect he is facing is because of his weakness to date or whether it is because of his skin color.

Show me a non-white in positions wherein they are not the commanders of their world, and in this case most of the world, perhaps my feelings would change.

Also show me how worrying, or discussing, potential racism against this president is going to help him, his agenda, US citizens, or the world in general advance or improve, then again, I'll be happy to change my POV. Till then I'll continue to resist this avenue of concern being brought to the fore.

[CBR]

30. If we could get progressives, liberals and democrats to

stop agreeing with right wing frames (race card), it would help advance the agenda of this nation's citizens a great deal. If I, as a white person, can agree to listen to the concerns about race and racism that persons of color see that I may not, it helps their cause and our cause as a diverse nation. The racism the President faces mirrors, IMO, the struggles that many persons of color face in their daily lives -- higher standards etc...

I will not dismiss the concerns of minorities in this country because it does not advance what I see as the agenda because progress on race is an important dimension of this fight.

[Better Today]

33. I do not dismiss the concerns of minorities in this country or elsewhere,

however, this particular person and this particular situation, is dis-serviced by such distractions, imo.

[FrenchieCat]

37. He ain't supposed to have to deal with his skin color,

cause he had no control over that, nor will it ever go away.

You need to deal with the fact that there are racists out there,
and they will deny that there is anything wrong with that....
and that those who choose have the right to point it out
when we see it.


As for calling this President weak, I'll disagree with that as well.


The President is not weak, and is leading, just that some don't like his manner of doing so.
He showed his strength and led by determining the approx of the stimulus and getting that passed pretty much as requested. some might not have "liked" the make up or amount of the Stimulus, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the President was strong on this and did lead and won.

He showed strength in how he led on enacting exactly on his pre-election-stated beliefs of how we should proceed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We may not "like" that strength of his on that, but he led exactly as he said he would.

He showed strength on deciding that we should tackle heath care reform, which is why we have been discussing Health Care now for almost a year.

He showed strength by telling all ahead of time what it was that Health Care Reform should do, and then gave Congress their duly task (what they were elected to do) of putting together Health Care Reform. Perhaps we didn't want him to do it that way, but that is the way that he chose to do it. So it's not that he didn't lead on this, some just didn't "like" that he did it this way.

He had told all of us throughout the election that he was interested in Bipartisanship. Now, many may not wanted that, but that has nothing to do with Pres. Obama sticking to the way he felt Health Care reform should be approached; with both parties participating. That's not a lack of strength or leadership; that's a perfect example of one having a conviction and following through on it, even if it wasn't what some Liberals wanted done.

Both bills passed through Congress, and NO we did not have a filibuster proof majority except in the imagination of those who don't want to accept facts; that many of the Dems do not agree with us, period. The fact that both bills passed shows strength and leadership, considering that no other President had gotten that done before.

Well what about him not putting single payer on the table? He stated explicitly that we weren't going to be starting over. He stated that during the election, and followed through on that, in that he really never considered it, although he knew that there were folks out there who felt that this was the only way. So yeah....he wasn't weak on discussion about single Payer, because that is exactly said he would do; not consider it as an option. Now, sure, some don't "like" this, but it has nothing to do with leading, because he'd already given us a heads up on that. The fact that those who wanted it considered couldn't persuade that to happen, doesn't have anything to do with his leadership, and may have more to do with the leadership of those who wanted it considered and couldn't get it done. If you voted for him, you already knew his stance on this, so none of it was a surprise, and disappointment from proponents of single payer does not equal lack of leadership.

So what about his giving the Public Option the shaft? As some have stated, he never pushed for it in the way that they had envisioned. But actually he told us that the PO wasn't a pre-requisite to passing health care, and that was not his weakness, that was his prerogative, and he exercised it. Many might not like it, but based on his lack of emphasis on it (the PO is not a panacea was his attitude) that is how he felt about it, and acted accordingly. Point is not that this shows a lack of leadership; means that his emphasis was different from what many of us wanted it to be, and he emphasized what he thought was important.....in other words, he led in the manner that he chose to lead on this issue, which is why the House passed a PO and the Senate didn't....because he stated that he would like it, but would settle for something other than it, if it would achieve competition. The Senate instead passed the Exchange idea, and it is true that this set up does offer competition; just not in the same form as the PO exactly.

So now, where are we?

We have two bills that have passed both chambers of Congress.

We have had a thorough debate in where both parties have had their say, and Americans have been able to follow this debate if they wanted to, and weren't so weak as to let the media manipulate their opinions.

We now have the chance to insure 31 million of our citizens, lower the cost of insurance, include folks who currently can't get health insurance, fund community clinics in a manner never seen, and a chance to set up exchanges to allow more choice than what we have now, and yes, a possible mandate, something that is something that the President changed his mind on, admitted to that fact not as a sign of weakness, but a sign of understanding that strength has nothing to do with always acting like one is right. He provided us with his rationale as to why he believed that Mandates are needed in order to make HCR work, and we can take it or leave it, but it's not a question of "weakness".

So he never led in pushing for government to provide free health care for everyone, and certainly he didn't say that he was going to get rid of Insurance companies, or that he was going for a giant government program (that's what the Right accused him of). That does not make him weak, even if you think it makes him wrong. The two are not the same, and should not be interpreted as such.

We have a chance to pass HCR, and he led to get it to where we are on that. He is now calling on an up/down vote in the House to pass the Senate Bill. Where's the weakness?

He is stating that via reconciliation, once the bill is passed, a bill of fixes can be passed through the Senate. That is a fact, that it can be.

So Pres. Obama has shown his strengths just fine in my opinion, and has led accordingly; just that some didn't want to follow, and weren't gonna follow starting on day one, because what the President wanted in HCR isn't what same folks wanted.

A difference in opinion is not a failure to lead. a difference in approach does not make one way weak and the other way not. Those who thinks so, must realize that they only say that, because where the President is leading is not where they, themselves, want to go. That's different. That's simply a difference in ideology and the difference between realizing and accepting that there was always a difference between what some wanted and what the President believed was doable.

He is exactly a strong leader...just that some would have preferred if he was a follower of what they had determined was needed, and No that didn't happen, precisely because he is a strong leader and not a follower.

You can hate, dislike, not want to support him any longer for it, but to state that where we are is due to a lack of his leadership or due to him being weak is inaccurate. period.

[Bobbie Jo]

40. Excellent post. nt

[Empowerer]

18. Wow

[Hansel]

22. +1

[Beartracks]

46. +1

Good points! Emphasis added:

>> "Those that are outraged by the perceived racism, will accomplish absolutely nothing by constantly pointing it out. Even if you or anyone else manages to shame those that you perceive as behaving racially into behaving differently, there will be no effect on legislation."

-Even if one hopes to change election outcomes through such shame, that is a far-out goal with uncertain outcomes. Plus, we've seen that many who are perceived as behaving racially that actually ARE behaving racially -- and their supporters -- simply do not seem to experience shame.


>> "Arrogance when displayed against a person of color is nearly always claimed as racism, even when it has nothing to do with race, but instead is a reflection of the power of those involved. Right now the Repubs rightly believe that they are in control, Obama sure seems more concerned with their desires than anyone else's. Until and unless he changes that, the arrogant ways might be racism veiled, or it might just be their power trip."

-True, how can you tell? Seeing the world through a certain filter makes EVERYthing look like the same.

[stevenleser]

64. Yes, a post that says a lot, although not what the poster intended I'll wager.

Very sad and revealing.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Empowerer]

28. Every previous president "earned" respect by being elected president

Apparently, that's not enough for THIS President. It doesn't matter that he won the election or that he was sworn in as President - a feat accomplished by only 43 other people in our nation's history. He STILL has to prove himself worthy. And until he does, not only is he not entitled to any respect, neither he nor anyone else has the right to object when he's treated with rank disrespect.

Got it?

[Better Today]

32. Dream world. There are many presidents that have faced lack

of respect, before, during, and after. But since it isn't in the 2-3 paragraphs that one finds in history books, most don't realize it. As I've mentioned before, Jimmy Carter was never treated with respect by media or congress and you can't get much whiter than Carter.

As I recall we've also read recently a whole lot about another president that didn't get respect, but got crap and push back, and he pushed back harder. . . he is being used as a comparison to Obama's lack of push back, and why to date Obama is still failing. . . gosh who was that now?

[Better Today]

31. Actually hearing this from you is like a badge of honor. I would never

want to be in your favor.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Today]

34. So you assume I'm white, how humorous.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Today]

53. And black is the only ethnicity that experiences racism? Hmmm,

well thank you for clearing up your POV, assuring that it is so slanted as to be meaningless.

[FrenchieCat]

57. No, of course not.

But you asked a question and I answered.

Are you something else? Well you can answer that if you wish.....
as that is not something I'm used to asking.

As to my meaningless POV, that's your opinion, and one I'm sure is shared by a few,
and yet many others would argue that my POV is not meaningless to them.
In otherwords, you aren't really saying anything that needs discussion or debate....
but I will note your feelings about my POV for future reference.

[timeforpeace]

60. Race baiting will not prevail in 2012. It is a losing, albiet inevitable, tactic.

[izzybeans]

78. Nice race-baiting.

You have it down pat.

[Number23]

38. Damn. So because Obama knew that "race was still an issue in this country"

no one better EVER point it out, huh?? Wonder if you feel that way about sexism, xenophobia and other ills that plague our society or if your perception of "useless whining" is limited only to persons of color??

Whether you want to admit it or not, your attitude is most definitely part of the problem and one of the reasons that persons of color and smart white folks laugh their asses off when we are constantly being told that we are living in a "post racial" society. I'm bookmarking this entire thread because of your post. Unreal.

[Better Today]

39. Straw man, I never said it shouldn't be raised, I said it shouldn't be

raised with a pre-condition that it cannot be disagreed with.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Today]

47. It is my opinion, I am not asking anyone to limit opposing opinions as the OP is.

[EffieBlack]

62. You have either misread or are mischaracterizing my OP

I have not asked anyone to limit their opposing opinion at all.

I have no problem with opposing opinions and feel that everyone has a right to view things as they choose. And I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me or others who believe that race plays a role in a certain aspects of political or societal commentary and behavior. What I DO object to is having our opinion spit up as not even worthy of consideration and having our motives questioned - all because our view of the existence of race in the matter differs from yours.

You have every right to believe that race is irrelevant to the treatment of the President or in any other aspect that we may be discussing. But denigrating the motives of those who feel differently from you - sneering at our opinion as simply "playing the race card" as if we have no valid view to offer but wish to cheat our way to some unfair "advantage" over you by by pretenting to be victims is not only insulting, it undermines everyone's ability to address this issue in a forthcoming way.

Being dismissed and lectured to in the way that you and others seem to feel so entitled to do as you act as the arbiters of when it is and is not appropriate to discuss race and how it is appropriate to discuss and what the motives are of those who choose to bring it up when you find it inconvenient is what I object to, not the fact that you may not agree with my opinion on a given issue.

[Better Today]

66. Well I'm quite confused are you Empowerer or EffieBlack.

Have you exposed yourself with a sock puppet, I think it's called?

[stevenleser]

65. Well, yes, you did.

"many of us see it as useless whining"

That is a passive-aggressive way of saying it shouldn't be raised, right? Surely you arent advocating for a whole lot of posts of "useless whining"

[Better Today]

68. Of course I'm not advocating for more useless whining, but I am also not trying to stop

it. I will likely post about it being useless whining on each and every thread that presents, though.

If you read that small bit as telling you or anyone else what to post or not post, then it would seem you have an inclination to "hear" with a child's ear as to a parent's reprimand. Since I am not the parent of any member here, I surely don't intend it that way. As two adults, speaking from different POVs on the issue, it is simply my opinion of the topic.

[Number23]

69. "I will likely post about it being useless whining on each and every thread that presents"

Or, you could keep your unsolicited opinion on this matter to yourself and simply excuse yourself from the conversation.

The fact that you consider it your DUTY to barge into threads about racism and identify them as "useless whining" says SO much more about you and the type of person you are than the person making the point about racism. You've outed yourself beautifully in this thread.

If I barged into every thread that I disagreed with or thought were "useless" I've have a hell of alot more than 6200 posts.

[Better Today]

71. No opinions on DU are solicted, and it isn't your place to determine

what my duty is. I will respond to whichever threads I desire to, whenever I desire to, within the rules that DU requests to the best of my ability. Feel free, please, to duty yourself into whatever choices you desire.

This whole OP was an attempt to change DU rules, that's everyone's business at DU.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PurityOfEssence]

16. Racism, sexism and homophobia are highly-charged accusations

Using those accusations against fellow members of this community, although sometimes justified, are shut-down, exiling dismissals. Whether designed as such, to tar someone as a racist is not only to crush the person's point, but the person him/herself. This is not good for discourse for anyone who wishes to engage and maybe learn something, and it cheapens the environment of the community.

Personally, I think there should be as few rules as possible, but those who try to shut down viable complaints of others by saying they're "playing the race card" are in many cases no better than those who infer that others are either racist or blind to racism.

Still, invoking rules against either would be difficult to formulate and nigh impossible to enforce.

People need too be very careful about resorting to such accusations and have some sort of respect. It brings out the worst in people and plummets the discourse into the relative worth of the individuals' very souls themselves, instead of the policy and philosophical issues that should be judged on their own merits.

Truly, the use of calling people names, whether they be "racist" or "someone playing the race card" are EQUAL AFFRONTS. Both are schoolyard attempts to shout down others and whip up a frenzy of the masses to drum the offender out of the community.

Doing so should be a very last resort, and unless the offender is truly perceived as someone trying to dissemble or rabble-rouse, the accusation should be tendered with some restraint.

We've seen the good and bad of the human spirit on this board, but if there's one thing that should typify pluralists, it's coexistence. Barking with accusations of intolerant evil should not be a common occurrence from either direction, and regardless how hurt and abused we may have personally been in our lives, we haven't walked in the shoes of the person on the other side of the screen and that person is often NOT the recipient of the benefits of all the abuse that's befallen us.

Any use of these epithets awakens many demons in even the best of us, and they should not be taken lightly.

[JI7]

24. "playing the race card" is a right wing line

the racist trying to make themselves out to be a victim of the person they are racist against.

[firedupdem]

26. Excellent post! I rec'd and it's still negative. One of the reasons

I spend so little time here.

"Yet, when we speak up about the obvious racial undertones to certain attacks against our President, people who are supposed to be on our side immediately try to shut down the discussion, often going so far as to defend the smears as nothing out of the ordinary in American politics."

They will never be on this president's side....never.

[Peacetrain]

27. +1 and K&R for the OP

I actually do not care for the +1's etc.. but you nailed that one, I could not have said it any better

[Uzybone]

35. Completely agree

there is a level of racism tolerated here that is very worrisome.

[Number23]

42. Rec'd but you're wasting your time, Empowerer

Don't you realize that the opinions of black people aren't worth the paper they're printed on?? We're not even allowed to talk about our own history, traditions, experiences etc. without being "corrected" by white people. We're told that we're wrong about our OWN EXISTENCES and even the PERCEPTION of our existence in this country by people who have no clue what it's like to walk even a step in our shoes, let alone a mile.

It's always been this way and I don't see it changing anytime soon. Call it cynicism or hopelessness, I just call it what it is.

[firedupdem]

54. +1 n/t

[Igel]

58. I've had the opposite told to me.

I can have no valid opinion--even about things that I say. If they seem racist to somebody else of the right ethnicity or skin color, regardless of what I mean, regardless of the context, they what they perceive is what I must mean. To deny it is to confirm it. To confirm it is to confirm it. To not say anything about it is to confirm it. Catch-22.

I consider it a different default hypothesis. If somebody seems nasty to me, I consider the default assumption to be that they're not nasty and I need prove that they're being nasty to me. Then I consider reasons that might cause an otherwise reasonable person to be nasty to me. Most of the time, my default hypothesis works. On rare occasion, I let somebody who's nasty do me wrong. It happens. But I consider that less bad than making the assumption that people who have had a bad day, misunderstood what I meant, confuse me with somebody else, etc., are being nasty to me because of who I am.

Not everybody shares this default hypothesis. Locally, the default hypothesis is that all outsiders are bad and only family members are trustworthy. The default hypothesis among blacks I've met--seldom among Latinos or Asians--often seems to be, "If it can be construed to be racist, consider it racist." Even if the construction is patently absurd, the hypothesis doesn't need to be proven but falsified. Perhaps it was a reasonable survival strategy; such things are often continued long past when they're necessary, and often continue when they're a disadvantage.

It's made worse by confirmation bias. If you think that something is the case, your brain (or my brain) does a fairly good job of simply discarding as irrelevant information that doesn't fit a theory. Information that *could* fit a theory is taken to confirm the theory. Yes, it's the reverse of the scientific method. But we're primates, we're built that way. Moreover, we tend to cut people in our group slack: We find cultural reasons to explain away deviant behavior by those we consider like us, we judge them less harshly--and those we consider unlike us, or our adversaries, we judge more harshly and if a behavior can be construed to be neutral or deviant we'll find a way to call it deviant. These nicely always remind us that we're in the group we think we are and that we're right. Both are comforting.

My standard, off-the-rack example is from a few years old. We're at the mall; my wife was in a store, I + kid were outside. A black couple + child appear, the wife goes into the store, father + kid were outside. Kids start to play. Eventually my kid says, "Boy, what's your name? My name's ---." The kid's mother was just coming out--it was a lousy store. Upon hearing what my kid said, she rushed over and scooped up her kid, clutching him close and rushing to her husband; they exchanged a few words, and the husband glared at me + kid. Then, actually glaring at us over their shoulders, the man and woman rush off.

So, was my kid racist? They thought so; in fact, the first thing through my mind was that we had to teach our kid not to refer to black boys as "boy" because, well, calling them what they are is often considered unacceptable. The second thing through my mind was I was being ridiculous, and the third thing was that the woman (and then the man) were absurdly paranoid. Did I mention that my kid had just turned 2, and their kid was about the same age? That my kid had gone up to theirs and they'd played together for a few minutes, until I suggested that my kid ask what the other kid's name was? That my kid was in the habit of addressing kids by what he thought their sex was until they provided a name that he remembered, and to prompt their saying their name he'd say either "Girl, what's your name?" or "Boy, what's your name?"

The difference in default hypotheses, though, leads to different behaviors. One assumption is that a person's not racist until there's actual evidence that s/he is racist--but since I have no actual skin in the game and weak group affiliation, evidence doesn't have to be very strong when it comes to people I don't know, but it does have to be unambiguous. If Obama's called arrogant by repubs, my assumption is that since Clinton and Carter were called arrogant by repubs and Reagan, Bush I and Bush II were called arrogant by dems, so of course Obama's going to be called arrogant by those who disagree with him. The other assumption is that a person is racist until there's actual evidence that they're not racist--but since it's often a more strongly held belief the standard of proof is higher, esp. for people not around (since the judgment is free) but must also be unambiguous. Since racist whites insulted blacks demanding their just rights by calling them "uppity," and "uppity" has a near synonym in "arrogant", this is proof that the whites are racist. Same evidence, mind you--just perceived differently.

Frenchie's long list of questions show precisely the same difference in assumptions: For her (I think she's a her) non-racism is what needs to be shown, for me there's an answer to every one of her questions that involves something other than racism (as well as the observation that the "some people" aren't the same "some people" in every case). There's a different default hypothesis, a different set of biases, so that she sees a pattern where I don't. In fact, for some people not seeing the pattern or even offering a suggestion as to why she sees a pattern and I don't is likely to be seen as racist, followed by, "You just don't understand"--which I simply take as code for, "You doubt my default hypothesis and the validity of my confirmation biases, and I'm not about to explain them or even admit them."

So while we argue about "race cards" and whether a person is really a racist, the lack of agreement is because we often have underlying default hypotheses, different sets of confirmation biases and different group boundaries/allegiances. We don't think down to discuss the hypotheses, instead we fling poo at each other, primate style, over whether one surface judgment and conclusion is the only possible right conclusion or whether somebody else's is. Partly we do this because to pose the topic takes a lot of explanation and in a forum like this 2-3 line posts are pushing the limit for what most people are willing to read. Partly it's because to pose the question is to admit to having confirmation biases, varying default hypotheses, and alignment with some group.

[FrenchieCat]

59. In all that you have said, really the question you pose is

how sensitive should we as a society be based on our past collective behavior,
and clear evidence that racism has been with us forever?

If in raising my Black children, I felt compelled in explaining to them some facts about being Black,
because if I didn't, someone else just might (and there were incidents that they were
prepared for, that they might not, had I decided that the discussion was not warranted).

At the time, I found that to be a real sad neccessity....
discussing something with a 5 year old that I didn't think should be explained,
but I have did it anyway.

Question is why should you be immune of not having to do the same; educating you children
of the same thing?

The answer may be that you may not believe that this is necessary.
Me, in terms of my children, I believed that it was.

Now, what I'd like for you to do is take those questions that I asked,
and please, provide me with your answers for them. I'm curious as to
all of the reasons you can come up with apart from the reason being race.

Thanks for your piece. I did read it all.

[Better Today]

70. Your patient and considered response is quite excellent!

Your parking lot example really brings home the difference. I had a similar issue with my son calling a black elementary classmate "Dumbass" when he got particularly peeved one day. He too, took it as a racial slur, and I had to head up to the school. . . equipped with the DUMBO movie VHS that we owned wherein the elephants are practicing their stacking ontop of each other maneuver, and one lady elephant says to the other, "get your foot out of eye, dumbass!" So my son still had to apologize for the curse "ass", but the perceived racial slur was forgiven as it were. I've been told that newer versions (ours was like one of the first VHS printings way back in the day), she says something milder, but in our version she clearly says, "dumbass."

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

55. Perhaps it shouldn't be a last resort.......

because perhaps it isn't last.....
except to those who are described
in always finding any other reason but.

[spoony]

63. No, "talking about race isn't playing the race card," but when posters

start saying that all opposition to Obama is based on racism, or insinuate that DUers are racist for criticisms, that is. And it is exactly what you describe in your penultimate paragraph, a tactic for shutting people down.

[PurityOfEssence]

67. Claiming someone is "playing the race card" is no better or worse than claiming someone's a "racist"

They are literally equivalent shut-downs, designed to tar the recipient as unworthy of being part of the community. Each is a version of highly-charged dismissal that should be rarely used.

I agree completely with you, and you'll find many here of a kindred spirit. Speaking out on this subject is not that readily done, though, so the volume of posting doesn't really reflect the common mindset.

[spoony]

77. Good points, also your #16

That's the sort of thoughtfulness we need on such charged issues.

[pampango]

73. FWIW: Leonard Pitts Jr.: "Race plays a role in Tea Party, but there’s more to it"

http://www.daytondailynews.com/opinion/columnists/leonard-pitts-jr-race-plays-a-role-in-tea-party-but-theres-more-to-it-570390.html

One is reminded of the 2008 campaign in which many of Barack Obama’s opponents insisted people only “supported” him because he was black. It was an offensive claim, in that it assumed black was black was black and that people were so imbecilic that skin color — alone and of itself — was sufficient to win their votes. The truth, it always seemed to me, was more nuanced. People liked Obama’s policies, his eloquence, and his fierce intelligence and the fact that he was black, that his election would turn history on its ear, was a desirable bonus, but only that — icing on the cake, but not the cake itself.

I submit that a rough inverse of that dynamic now helps define the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party people distrust Obama’s policies, his eloquence, his fierce intelligence and the fact that he is black then becomes the final straw, the difference maker and deal breaker. To put that another way: I doubt most of the Tea Partiers hate Obama strictly because he is black, but it sure doesn’t help.

Yes, race is obviously a component, and a major component at that, of the reaction against the president. The recurring use of racist imagery and language, the attendance at Tea Party events of a racist group like the so-called Council of Conservative Citizens, settles that definitively.

But ultimately, people seem moved by something even bigger than race. This is race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, “culture,” and the fact that those who have always been on the right side, the “power-wielding” side, of one or more of those equations, now face the realization that their days of dominance are numbered. There is a poignancy to their responsive fury because one senses that the nether side of it is a choking fear. We are witness to the birth cries of a new America and for every one of us who embraces and celebrates that, who looks forward to the opportunity and inclusiveness it promises, there is another who grapples with a crippling sense of dislocation and loss, who wonders who and what she will be in the nation now being born.

[Better Today]

75. Great oped, and describes both many Tea partiers, and many

Republicans, perhaps even some of the talking heads on the MSM as well.

[JoePhilly]

74. Understand ... the Best Defense is a Good Offense ... the GOP is using the tactic too.

[Romulox]

76. So...the OP gets to call whomever disagrees with her a racist, but nobody can call HER out?

Sounds fair. :shrug:

[MzShellG]

79. OMG AMEN!!

You articulated my thoughts perfectly.

[Empowerer]

81. :-) I'm glad n/t