It is so sad to see progressives fight to protect conservatives from having their racism called out

[Empowerer]

Most progressives are eager to call out Republican motives and actions and to blame all kinds of factors for unacceptable Republican behavior. They have no problem attributing it to everything from mere stupidity to criminal intent to vicious cruelty.

Yet, without fail, whenever one of us suggests that racism may be among these factors, some progressives immediately and reflexively object, offering a panoply of alternatives to explain away these actions and attitudes and jumping through hoops trying to prove that anything but racism is behind them. And then, more often than not, they subject us to sanctimonious lectures about what racism is and isn't and why WE'RE making things worse by "playing into their hands," "crying wolf," "making it harder" to deal with racism when it REALLY actually arises (which it never seems to do, according to these folks), and, of course "PLAYING THE RACE CARD."

It is very interesting that, regardless how deep and wide the political chasm between liberals and conservatives, so many find firm common ground when it comes to refusing to acknowledge and address racism.

And it is very troubling how swiftly, blindly and vigorously some progressives will circle the wagons around their bigoted conservative breathren the minute to protect them from being tainted by the stain of an accusation of racism.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Please give an example. nt

[Empowerer]

5. From yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x723596

[Sarah Ibarruri]

15. Oh yes. Absolutely. That's another reason I don't understand why Obama is even being nice to

right wingers.

Right wingers make me vomit, they're such racist a-hs.

I've had right wingers tell me that they really are not racist because there are black Republicans, such as Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, Condoleeza Rice, Don King, 50 cent (YES!), TD Jakes, Michael Steele, etc.

I say to them that these people are THE exception, and that I question their sanity, since right wingnuts ARE racist. It would be (in my opinion) tantamount to Jews belonging to the Nazi party. Why on earth would ANYONE want to be part of a group whose fundamental beliefs and tendencies are racist?

[GillesDeleuze]

22. but OP is saying that by believing in government production of public goods = racism

interesting.

[Empowerer]

26. Wow - 5 posts in this thread in less than 10 minutes

I obviously hit a nerve ...

FYI - most of your posts evidence a woeful misreading/mischaracterization of the OP.

[GillesDeleuze]

27. you still haven't had single shred of evidence

just mindless lashing out at "progressives" for enabling racism.

great jorb!

[Mimosa]

77. On rightwing boards they pull that BS all the time

It's ridiculous. The latest addition to the rightwing 'good blacks' roster is Rep Alan West, the teabagger clown from Florida. :7

Conservative boards (like Yet Another Politics Board) roil with hatred of minorities and women.

[vaberella]

177. He's forced to work with them because the American voters who gave the house to freaks.

You can say what you want...but he can't come across hostile to people he has to work with. He can disagree with them, but to be hostile is illogical, irrational and just plain stupid.

[GillesDeleuze]

21. i see a lively debate about assassinations vs. threats

but please quote the racists sentiments from progressives in the thread. im not going to do your persecution for you.

[Empowerer]

28. Why would you demand quotes of comments I never claimed were made?

I made no such accusation, so your attempt to prop up a strawman proves futile.

[GillesDeleuze]

30. Yes, you used quote marks in the OP, then listed the thread

those comments arent in the thread.

in other words youre making a bunch of shit up and it needs to stop.

[Empowerer]

33. Ypu accused me of not providing quotes of "racist sentiments by progressives"

But since I did not accuse progressives of expressing racist sentiments, your demand is a strawman.

But your vociferous (and now quite predictable)reaction to this issue - here and in other threats - is the perfect Exhibit A for my point. Your inability to recognize it - and your nearly hysterical attempts to argue about it would be amusing if it weren't such an unfortunate attitude all-too prevalent in today's political discourse.

[GillesDeleuze]

34. you are the one misreading

i asked for the enabling quotes, the ones you ACTUALLY CITE IN THE OP, that you failed to provide a link to. You claim they exist. Like fairies or the easter bunny, we still dont have any proof. Total thread fail.

grind your axe with those critical of obama from the left with policy arguments, not cries of racism enabling.

just sad.

[Empowerer]

35. You did not ask for "enabling quotes" - you asked for quotes

showing "racist sentiments."

But whine, change the subject, accuse and attack all you want. Not only do I see right through you, but with each of your increasingly hysterical and incoherent posts, you're merely proving my point.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[GillesDeleuze]

45. yawn. progressives are racists. you are so much bigger and more adult. i get it. yawn..

[ZombieHorde]

81. That OP contained lies. It should have been booed. nt

[Ter]

136. That lie-fest thread needs to go away quitly

n/t

[EffieBlack]

104. There's no longer any need to cite other threads-this thread now contains numerous examples

of exactly what the OP refers to.

How ironic that folks respond to criticism that some people defend racist behavior and attack those who call it out by defending racist behavior and attacking the poster for calling it out.

[Mimosa]

126. Effie, I know what you mean

I'd recently posted a topic about comments from white racists which routinely ruin many articles about Micheele Obama or interviews with her. I was honestly upset to my core and broke down in tears after having clicked on an article about the First Lady which had been ruined by vicious ugly comments from racist pigs. I felt I needed to talk about it, maybe even figure out whether there might be a way for us to prevent comments sections in media from being overrun by racists.

A few comments told me such stuff doesn't belong at DU. The mods didn't remove my OP, so I gather I didn't offend them. But sometimes it seems white people in general don't want to discuss how bad the racism is getting. And it is getting worse.

[Karenina]

139. Collective denial.

The worst is when it happens on a personal level. It feels like someone shot a cannon through your chest. The most egregious racism I've been subjected to on this side of the pond has been from Amis using that very same M.O. The natives I've met here are much more likely to STOP. LOOK. LISTEN. than to leap into knee-jerk defensive posture. It has been quite refreshing.

[Karenina]

167. Hot off the presses in GD! HERE YA GO!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1636484#1639463

[Empowerer]

169. Case in point -thank you.

[Karenina]

174. Here is another one, just like the other one!

"And the hits just keep on comin'..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x605233

[ananda]

2. You know what annoys me.

When clearly racist people get all huffy and accuse you of playing
the race card when all you're doing is rightly calling them out on
their racism. I really hate that.

[Solomon]

38. The term "race card" was invented for that very reason.

I hate it.

Since "racism" according to some white people, is the absolute worst thing you can say about a person, that means ipso facto, they're not racist.

I love that kind of circular logic. If you can find any other hook to hang your hat on, any other contributing reason, then that means, it's not racism. LOL

[DevonRex]

47. So do I. Nt

[VeryConfused]

3. The problem is you assume their isn't racism among liberals

we have seen that not to be the case. The difference between racism on the right and left is the right hates minorities while the racists on the left think of minorities as inferior but want to generally treat them benevolently

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

72. +1,000,000! Hence, the distrust that some blacks have towards white liberals.

Or, during the primaries, the tension between white women who supported Hillary and screamed sexism but ignored black women who saw the racism through and through. Yes, there was indeed sexism. That is undoubtedly true. But many of these women who supported Hillary to no end refused to accept that there was any racism.

What Geraldine Ferraro said what outright racist. The "hard-working whites" comment uttered by Hillary Clinton was clearly racist. And yet, it was all about Obama dusting off his shoulder or uttering "you're likable enough." Those two events had nothing to do with sexism.

[EffieBlack]

75. +1

[TheKentuckian]

79. Liberals supported neither. Liberals went with Obama to avoid Clinton.

I agree with you about the comments, I don't get the connection to liberals unless you are talking "pragmatic progressives" aka "Centrists".

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

85. Pragmatic Progressives are not Centrists. They're *realists*!!

Put more liberals/progressives in the halls of Congress and you'll get more liberal policy outcomes! Putting Teabaggers/ReTHUGs in Congress, but don't complain when you can't get what you want when you want.

That's realism. Has nothing to do with ideology or preferences. My preference is to have liberal policies. Hell, I'm damn near a socialist and don't mind embracing the label. Sadly, we don't have enough Bernie Sanders in Congress. That's just the truth. It's real. It's a fact. Give me more Bernie Sanders, and I'll give you Single Payer!! :)

[TheKentuckian]

125. What time of tree you have is best determined by the fruit it bears.

Tastes like the same sour persimmons to my palate.

[baldguy]

141. Who said the racists who supported Clinton were liberals?

Considering that many of them went Teabagger after the primaries, I find your claim hard to swallow.

[OHdem10]

4. Possibly some people recognize that Racism can be trivialized

if used too often. Calling out on Racism will become
no more than just calling names.

[Empowerer]

7. You are helping to prove my point

Racism seems to be the only factor that must be raised sparingly. I never see anyone here insist that accusations of hypocrisy, caving-in, criminality, etc. be rationed lest they just be dismissed as mere "name-calling." Those accusations fly freely and often. Yet racism, which is raised much less frequently is held to a different standard.

[OHdem10]

13. I learned this from our Jewish Friends. Way back there was a

tendency to use "Holocaust" frequently. The Jewish
Community came together and said to each other this
can be trivialized to the point, it will mean nothing.

They changed that. Holocaust must have a strong meaning
and no one wants to be accused.

All I am saying is if Racism like anything else is overused,
it becomes like water off a duck's back. No one considers
it that important.

[Empowerer]

17. Racism does not equal the Holocaust

I doubt there's a consensus in the Jewish community to pull their punches on calling out anti-semitism, which is a more accurate corollary to racism. If people consistently accused bigots of lynching or enslaving blacks, that would be equivalent, in my view of invoking the Holocaust in a way that trivializes it. But pointing out racism is a different category - much more along the lines of calling out hypocrisy, etc.

Moreover, those who accuse us of "trivializing" racism by talking about it don't really seem to be concerned about racism being brought up too much - they don't like it to ever be brought up AT ALL - and they usually pounce on ANY mention of it in ANY context. Oh, they admit that racism exists and that it's ok to talk about it - just not THIS time, just not in THIS circumstance, just not about THIS situation, because - according to the self-appointed arbiters of what is and isn't racism and when it is and isn't appropriate to discuss it and who is and isn't entitled to bring it up.

[Supersedeas]

153. the connection between racism and hypocrisy is ironic on this thread

especially in light to your response to the discussion of trivializing the Holocaust--the accusation of "there's another example" without allowing a more nuanced discussion is just one ironic example.

Overall, I see the unsubstantiated charge of racism in response to a substantive disagreement about 'policy' without any attempt to distinguish the two as both trivializing and hypocritical.

[Empowerer]

163. Where are you getting "charge of racism in response to a substantive disagreement about 'policy'"

My OP said nothing about disagreement about "policy," substantive or otherwise.

[GillesDeleuze]

23. That doesn't stop the right wing from trivializing

health insurance is a HOLOCAUST! lolzy

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

73. Who gets to decide if charges of racism are overused? White people themselves??

Or, black people who have and continue to experience it?

If it's the former, then you've proven the OP's point.

White people saying that there is no racism or accusing those who charge others of harboring racist sentiment or making racist comments of "being sensitive" have no right to do so. How they know that there is no racism if they're not a minority? If they themselves have not experienced racial prejudice, how do they know whether or not it exists? (I'm not talking about affirmative action, either!)

[Kind of Blue]

152. There's a big difference because the Holocaust did not happen here,

as opposed to the Holocaust on Blacks in this country whose affects can not be called out enough.

[DevonRex]

48. Bigotry should always be pointed out for what it is. Nt

[EffieBlack]

52. True

But I have found that some of the same people who will dismiss and sometimes attack minorities, gays, etc. for complaining about racism - telling them to stop being so sensitive, stop whining, stop accusing, stop playing the race card, stop demanding political correctness - will howl like babies at the mere thought that someone might be accusing them of racism - even when nothing of the kind has happened.

For some reason, they believe that the possibility of being thought of as a racist entitles them to be outraged and offended, but the possibility that one is the victim of racism is no big deal and certainly does not entitle one to say anything about it.

[DevonRex]

68. There it is.

That's the plain truth. I recognize it because I was raised in a racist family in a racist town in a racist state. I tried really hard not long ago to get my sister to imagine herself in the shoes of black person. She could not, would not do it.

In the end I realized that I couldn't believe she was a good person at heart anymore. She has no soul, either by birth or by choice. And it doesn't matter which it is. Soulless is soulless, bottom line.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

147. Post of the Year!! Articulated much better than I could ever have!! n/t

[my2sense]

179. +1

[Cosmocat]

6. Sorry - 90 percent of the vile thrown at our president ...

is because he is a democrat.

They will sling WHATEVER mud they can get to take down a democrat, and the higher their position, the more vile it gets.

Do they race bait - ABSOLUTELY. Do we on a daily basis see some knucklehead republican do or say something racits about BO - ABSOLUTELY.

No debating that.

But, sorry, you are being as petty and small as the wingnut republicans if you go off half cocked screaming racism about everything.

Sorry, the debt ceiling thing is not because BO is black. They shut down the fricken government for Clinton, they spent 10s of millions of dollars investingating the white house, including the gosh darn pet cat's fan mail, and that is not a lie.

If they accused BO of being a murderer and drug dealer, people would reflexively scream "IT'S BECAUSE HE IS BLACK!"

Bill Clinton is white, and there are STILl republicans making good money saying he had Vince Foster killed and he was a drug lord in Arkansas.

They hated Hillary like no other person, and spent two decades hacking at her - all kinds of mysoginistic BS along the way, while turning to worship twits like Palin and Bachmann. They loved Colin Powell until he got a conscience, then turned on him. They LOVE Allen West.

Howard Dean got destoyed as a presidential candidate because of a "scream." Al Gore was painted as arrogant while an idiot was proppped up as a guy you would like to have a beer with. John Kerry actually served, and was wounded in battle, and was painted an american hating coward while the idiot was painted as a tough and resolute patriot.

The rules and frames morph to damage any D in power as much as possible and prop up whatever disaster the Rs have at the front of the parade. No subject or topic is off the table to do EITHER.

Sorry, it does not absolve them of being jack wagons in general, race baiting at every turn and even those who are in fact "racist" to say that their primary motive is taking down a democratic president at all costs.

[Empowerer]

31. You're right - much of the hatred of the President is based on politics, not race

And the political aspect is discussed ad nauseum.

But there is a significant degree of racism directed at him that pushes the opposition to him beyond points we've ever seen before. Yet while people are perfectly comfortable talking about, dissecting, and criticizing those other factors, some people recoil at any mention of the role race plays - some even go to the extreme of attacking those of us who bring it up - we're called race-baiters, lazy, opportunists, etc. WE'RE the problem, not those who engage in the racist commentary and behavior.

Just look around this thread and elsewhere on DU for loud and clear examples of this.

[GillesDeleuze]

61. no. the problem is racists. lots of progressives call it out. some (many) conservadems dog whistle.

yet OP targets progressives?

why is that?

[EffieBlack]

64. Lots of progressives call it out - only to be shouted down by others (including progressives)

claiming that it either doesn't exist or that those who do call it out are out of place in doing so.

You keep asking for examples, but one clear, recent example was provided to you and you dismissed it out of hand. You're not interested in facts - you just want to argue - but unfortunately, you're turning yourself around in circles, citing Google, and generally making no sense. And, best of all, you are over and over and over again proving the very point that you are so adamant about fighting.

[GillesDeleuze]

66. op said it had quotes, then provided the link

but the link didnt support the accusation.

down thread, others make a similar point.

just because the OP fails are articulating a clear case against progressives and their masking doesn't mean im participating in that very masking by asking for some semblance of proof.

id love for the discussion to move forward as to how best address racism, but without any evidence from the OP it makes it very difficult.

[EffieBlack]

70. If you"d "love to discuss how to address racism"

Why don't you do so? Thus far, you seem only interested in arguing with and trying to undermine the efforts of others who are trying to discuss the issue.

Why don't you discuss your views on how to best address racism? You say that you call out racism when you see it. Where/when have you seen/do you see it and how did/do you respond to it?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

148. Because progressives/liberals have wrongly convinced themselves that they cannot be

racists. And yet, I've seen it with my own two eyes!

Progressives/liberals are only human! They aren't Mother Theresa! There is good and bad in EVERYONE. Progressives/liberals--including myself--are not exempt!

[politicasista]

129. You both made good points n/t

[politicasista]

130. Excellent post n/t

[JVS]

131. Vile is not a noun.

[Karenina]

155. On my keyboard, the v is next to the b.

Grammar nazi that I am, such mistakes are given the benefit of the doubt. Your condescension is appreciated, tho!

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Empowerer]

12. Lecture noted ... and appreciated

as a valuable illustration of my very point.

[TheKentuckian]

9. That would be the Turd Wayers. Call a TeaPubliKlan out and they are falling

all over themselves to defend and protect.

Now, they are quick to accuse liberals of racism but with Reich Wingers, there is always excuses or the call out of a lack of civility.

[ruggerson]

10. The same thing happens with homophobia

just different wagons.

I'm sure you've noticed that as well. The denial runs very deep.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. I too am certain the OP must have noticed that.

The two bigotries are met with very similar reactions, and for very similar reasons. Of course, some do not see gay people are real people, so bigotry toward us is not really bigotry, it is 'religion'.

[GillesDeleuze]

20. who are the progressive homophobes?

crickets.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Homophobes are not progressive, they are bigoted righties.

But there are many who pose as something better than that. The President says only straights are 'Sanctified by God'. So tell me, Gilles, what does 'Sanctified' mean in a civil context? How does the President prove this state of Sanctity exists or that others lack it? Do you think, Gilles, that if a person says that a minority group is seen as lesser by God that person is not bigoted toward that minority group?
Define 'sanctity' in the context of civil law. Good luck.

[GillesDeleuze]

25. 1. O not a proggie (center-right) 2. Im an atheist.

so tell me, who are the progressives who are homophobes?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[ruggerson]

92. Sadly, there are far too many of them

There are many who call themselves progressives who will argue that Obama and the Democratic Party should not publicly favor marriage equality, because it might hurt Obama's chances in 2012.

When the Obama DOJ first responded to a DOMA court case by filing an odious brief which, amongst other things, compared marriage equality to incest, there were many putative "progressives" who fiercely defended the administration. There were a variety of ridiculous defenses: some tried to claim that Obama had no control over what his DOJ does. Many even defended the language in the brief itself, declaring it unilaterally non-homophobic (similar to when white people declare what is racist and what isn't). When Obama himself reversed course and had the DOJ issue a new, more gay-friendly brief along with a companion statement from the White House, these defenders either suddenly reversed course or just quietly withdrew from the debate.

Gay people have been accused by "progressives" of engaging in "victim" mentality for merely pointing out what they perceive as homophobia.

Personally, I try to defer to what African Americans interpret as racist or not. They know a hell of a lot more about racism in this country than do those who were born with white privilege. I may or may not see what they see in any given situation, but if I don't see it, I attribute that to the fact that I have experienced America in a much different way than they have for my entire life. Their experience of racism is authentic. Mine is only as an observer.

And therein lies the problem. Many straight progressives don't defer to what gays and lesbians perceive as homophobia. Instead, steeped in their own heterosexual privilege, they unilaterally decide for themselves what is homophobic and what is not. Sadly, they, often willfuly, cannot see beyond their own blinders.

[Karenina]

106. An excellent post on a thread that clearly exposes

EXACTLY what the OP was referring to!

"Personally, I try to defer to what African Americans interpret as racist or not. They know a hell of a lot more about racism in this country than do those who were born with white privilege. I may or may not see what they see in any given situation, but if I don't see it, I attribute that to the fact that I have experienced America in a much different way than they have for my entire life. Their experience of racism is authentic. Mine is only as an observer."

That ability to ditch the denial long enough to shut up and listen is a rare quality. When I became conscious of my LGBT classmates as a teenager at a performing arts school, I was fortunate enough to have close friends who schooled me. When I lost one to suicide it brought into stark relief the oh-so-similar bullshit that had been directed at me all my life.

Some of the attempts to express "superior knowledge" of the issue Empowerer brings up are quite entertaining.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[Empowerer]

122. Thank you for this

Your point is very well stated.

It is very frustrating to have concerns - that stem from the insight garnered from years of personal experience - dismissed with such arrogance, entitlement and snide assurance that THEY are in a much superior position to dictate whether and when we should be offended. Sadly, they don't even see what they're doing and when it's brought to their attention, rather than take the time to do a little soul searching, they immediately knee-jerk into self-pitying attacks.

It's very sad but, unfortunately, all too common - as we can see manifold right in this present thread.

[Pab Sungenis]

180. Valerie Jarrett,

Eric Holder, and a slew of others.

[Whisp]

175. hi jack

[Karenina]

181. Give credit due for the sentence structure!

"Personally, I try to defer to what African Americans interpret as racist or not. They know a hell of a lot more about racism in this country than do those who were born with white privilege. I may or may not see what they see in any given situation, but if I don't see it, I attribute that to the fact that I have experienced America in a much different way than they have for my entire life. Their experience of racism is authentic. Mine is only as an observer."

[Enrique]

11. this is a dishonest post, imo

now you say people object when anyone "suggests that racism may be among the factors". I really seriously doubt that anyone would object to such a mild and obvious observation.

What I have been seeing are very different claims, claims that we are seeing unprecedented things that could ONLY be explained by racism. I'm glad people have been pointing out that this is not the way things are.

[Armstead]

14. That's pretty much how I see it -- If you think of what Clinton went through...

..President Obama has gotten off easy.

Clinton was subjected to months of official and public talk about the most intimate details of his sexuality, including things like the angle of his penis.

He is white.

[CakeGrrl]

32. Um, that was because Clinton left them the DNA to have a field day.

What a lame analogy. They'd pee their pants with glee if President Obama gave them the same opportunity.

As it is, Fox gins up the racist dogwhistle with headlines like "Obama has a problem with white women" over POLL NUMBERS.

It doesn't take much to imagine how vicious they'd be if they could find a 'Monica' to associate with him.

[Armstead]

41. Um, my point was to the OP -- basically if you blame racism for everthing...

...then it gets a lot harder to identify and address the real racism when it arises.

Another comparison. John Kerry, a WAR HERO, was painted by the GOP as a coward and a liar simply by dredging up some irrelevant and erroneous "claims." It's the same kind of personal attack as the nonsense about Obama's birth record.

Also this notion that "progressives" are trying to quash claims of racism is yet another example of "punch the hippy" as Rachael Maddow calls it. "Ooooooo those awful progressives are criticizing a Black president. They must be closet racists too."

[EffieBlack]

43. You and some others here are making a pretty drastic and unsupported leap

Nowhere does the OP claim or even imply the progressives who criticize the president are racist. In fact, it doesn't even mention them. The OP criticizes those progressives who go out of their way to defend racists, insist that racism doesn't impact the way President Obama is treated and attack anyone who brings it up.

Your insistence on interpreting the OP as saying something it clearly doesn't say - not even close, is really odd. And the visceral reaction to an OP that just states a fact that many of know to be true is even odder.

[Armstead]

46. Why even use the word "progressive" then? If this is a problem, it has nothing to do with that.

First of all, most "progressives" will freely acknowledge the real racism that exists among some on the right regarding Obama.

Secondly, moderates can be seen as equally culpable in ignoring or dismissing racism as part of the problem. Even people who are strong supporters of President Obama might also be doing it.

So I stand by my contention that this is basically just another case of "let's find some new excuse to bash the progressives."

[GillesDeleuze]

56. ^^ exactly. nothing progressive about trying to mask racism. conservadems on the other hand...

have a lot to gain with dogwhistles, etc.

[CakeGrrl]

69. What would "real" racism be?

What, do people need to ride up to you with white hoods on before you consider them racist? You're close to proving the OP's point.

And again, your second analogy about John Kerry doesn't prove the point. The point of the birth certificate claims is EXACTLY because the point is to paint a black President as illegitimate. John McCain, who was born in Panama, is never questioned. THAT is a comparative that's on par with the birth certificate issue, not the lie about Kerry.

As to your having your back up about being a 'punched hippie', that's up to you. Personally I think it's a convenient way to take all the jabs at the President and his supporters you want, while crying "foul" if people push back on that by claiming that YOU are being picked on.

[Armstead]

82. I could cite msny examples of GOP racism regarding Obama...

I won't bother because you know them as well as I....And I think you'll find "progressives" have often pointed them out as much as any other shade of Democrat or independent liberal.

The reason I brought up Kerry was to show that the GOP will use whatever they can, whether its true or false to go after a Democratic presidentbor candidate on a personal level.

I will certainly not deny that a lot of the birth certificate issue was racist. And I have probably called it out at times here too.

But once again I have to go back to the original point , that somehow progressives want to ignore or defend such racism. Aside from being false, it also leads to a false conclusion that progressives who are critical or skeptical of Obama are also being racist.

If someone believes that too many people are overlooking or not seeing racism aimed at President Obama, that's a fair point.
There may also be instances where what one person may perceive racism, while another may not. That's life. People of a basically similar political perspective don't always agree.

But using it simpky as an excuse to bash progressives for not being sufficiently supportive of President Obama is way off target.

[EffieBlack]

83. You misread the op

[Armstead]

89. I did re-read it...Still disagree with the premise

I am more than willing to acknowledge that sometimes I might miss instances of racism. And if pointed out, I will accept that if I agree. But it's also possible I might disagree.

Nevertheless, I don't see "progressives" deliberately trying to excuse or conceal racism on the right. Sometimes may be differences of interpretation, but that's life on any issue or subject.

[Empowerer]

91. You did indeed misread it - which probably skewed your interpretation of the premise . . .

For example, you claim that I argued "that somehow progressives want to ignore or defend such racism."

I did not say that ALL or even MOST progressives do this. In fact, I explicitly stated that I was speaking of SOME progressives. And there is ample evidence - even right here on this board - that some progressives do exactly what I described. This is not a blanket criticism of progressives but is, instead, a lament that ANY progressive would engage in this kind of behavior. While I expect this from some elements, it deeply troubles me when it comes from anyone on my end of the political spectrum.

You also claimed that my OP criticized progressives "for not being sufficiently supportive of President Obama." I have no idea where you would get such a thing since I neither mentioned nor even implied nothing of the kind. In fact, I didn't mention President Obama, any criticism against him or support or lack thereof for him at all. Reading such claims into my OP is quite a stretch.

Yes, some of the racist behavior that I think some progressives ignore and/or defend is directed at President Obama. But most of it isn't. This problematic phenomenon has been prevalent and apparent long before President Obama even came onto the national scene. If this were JUST about the President, I probably wouldn't even say much about it since I would assume that it was complicated by a variety of political factors. But this is something that goes far beyond the President - it is a very common thing that I have seen in many contexts, involving many people and circumstances, not just in presidential politics. Its very commonality and frequency is the reason that I am addressing it.

As for your claim that my discussing this leads to a "a false conclusion that progressives who are critical or skeptical of Obama are also being racist," I have no control over whether someone draws completely illogical and unsupportable conclusions from anything I write. If someone assumes that all progressives who are critical or skeptical of the President are racist because I pointed out that SOME progressives deny and defend racist behavior, the problem lies with the person making such a bizarre leap, not with me. And anyone who would insist on drawing such a conclusion out of thin air would likely come up with this interpretation no matter WHAT I said, since it seems to stem from some preconceived notion on the reader's part and not on anything that I actually wrote or implied.

[Armstead]

94. If I truly misread your intent, I do apologize.

Things have been very heated recently, and there have been somewhat similar posts that have done what I referred to. To me, those similarities seemed to be amplified by the word "progressive" in quotes.

So, if that was not your intent, and I jumped to an erroneous conclusion, I apologize and deserve a slap on the wrist. I should not have trivialized the point you were making by associating it with the current political issue.

[Empowerer]

105. I really appreciate that

Thanks.

[Mimosa]

128. Exactly right! n/t

[damntexdem]

18. I'm not aware of progressives doing this.

Of course, if someone did so, I would hesitate to call him or her a progressive.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

37. The 2008 primaries really woke me up to the fact that liberals, progressives, Democrats

can be just as racist as Republicans. For many years, I had blinders on.

Going from neighborhood to neighborhood during the primaries on behalf of Obama showed me a lot about this world and the Democratic Party. And yes, there are racist liberals and progressives, just as conservatives have said (regardless of their intent).

And I see it here on DU day in and day out.

[GillesDeleuze]

39. links or it didn't happen.

[EffieBlack]

42. You're about to spontaneously combust!

But I wonder if you get anywhere close to getting this worked up over actual instances of racism or the enabling thereof as you do about people who dare to simply mention either.

[DevonRex]

50. Well, bless your little heart.

Now why would you be encouraging call-outs?

[GillesDeleuze]

53. There sure are a lot accusations of racism being thrown out without any proof. THats the call out.

[EffieBlack]

57. I'm fascinated that you believe and keep insisting that the OP accused progressives of racism

It did no such thing. It accused SOME progressives of DENYING that racism is at play. Which is true. And it is also true, as the OP noted, that SOME progressives, rather than addressing the identified racism, instead attack the people who identify it. In fact, it's happening right here in this thread in response to the OP - which is kind of funny in an ironic way.

[GillesDeleuze]

58. masking racism is structural and attitudinal racism.

[EffieBlack]

63. And your citation for this?

While we wait . . .

It seems that you agree with the OP to some degree. You seem to agree that the behavior noted constitutes masking of racism. But you went even further and defined such behavior as racism by extension, something the OP didn't do.

That probably explains your hissy fit - you believe that denying or defending racism is in and of itself racism. And since the OP criticized progressives who deny or defend racism, you believe that it called those progressives racist - since such behavior is, by your definition, racist.

You have, thus, projected your own definitions - that projection has triggered a hyper-defensiveness on your part.

That said, I'm still interested in seeing your sources for your conclusion that masking racism is racism, in and of itself. And not from Google, which may be my friend, but certainly is not a credible source.

[GillesDeleuze]

65. cites

Barndt, Joseph. Dismantling racism, 1991
Bell, Weld Prof. Law Harvard University, 1991
Martha R. Mahoney, Exit: Power and the Idea of Leaving in Love, Work, and the Confirmation Hearings, 65 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1283, 1288-89 (1992)
Beverly Horsburgh, SCHRODINGER'S CAT, EUGENICS, AND THE COMPULSORY STERILIZATION OF WELFARE MOTHERS: DECONSTRUCTING AN OLD/NEW RHETORIC AND CONSTRUCTING THE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHT TO NATALITY FOR LOW-INCOME WOMEN OF COLOR, January, 1996, 17 Cardozo L. Rev. 531
Paul Mann, Stupid Undergrounds (1995, iirc)
Robert Meister, Professor of Politics at UC Santa Cruz, “"Never Again": The Ethics of the Neighbor and the Logic of Genocide” 2005
Mendieta, Eduardo, SUNY at Stone Brook, leader of the Meeting of the Foucalt Circle, "To make live and to let die" Foucault on Racism, 2002

i could go on and on and on and on

[EffieBlack]

67. Each of these authors says that everyone who masks racism is a racist themselves?

Quote?

The very essence of institutional racism is that one does not need to be personally racist or even have a desire to promote racism. Institutional racism is self-executing - it takes specific action to stop its operation.

So it is a stretch to claim that anyone who defends or denies racism is a racist - and it is ridiculous to claim that anyone who criticizes those who defend or deny racism is accusing those persons of being a racist.

In your intellectual world, institutional racism would be free to exist and flourish since the very act of calling it out is an unfair attack on those who unknowingly perpetuates it.

[EffieBlack]

76. I'm familiar with several of these scholars and I don't believe they say what you claim they do

For example, I know that Joseph Barndt has written and spoken in great depth about institutional racism - but he has always taken great pains to make clear that he does not believe that individuals who benefit from institutional racism are bigots. The blame, in his view, lies with the racist institutions, not individuals.

Your second cite apparently refers to Professor Derrick Bell, who was the Weld Professor of Law at Harvard in 1991 - he was later fired and now teaches at NYU Law School. You don't cite the book or article in which he supposedly supports your claim - you just mentioned his last name, his old position and a date, which doesn't say anything at all.

I know Professor Bell and all of his writings and have, in fact, taught from some of his books. I am not aware that Professor Bell at any time ever wrote or said that everyone who masks racism is a racist. If you have a specific quote that you could cite, I'd be happy to see it. But just mentioning his name and former affiliation is certainly not enough to justify your claim.

FYI, Professor Bell is an adherent to and has written extensively on critical race theory which, among other things, analyzes how institutional racism, i.e., systemic inequalities in American society, enables whites to attain wealth, power and privilege under a false picture of a pristine meritocracy. Institutional racism is often an outgrowth of individual racism, but it is not necessarily connected to, dependent upon or evidence of it. Instead, institutional racism - by its very definition - is systemic and is structured to benefit dominant groups even in the absence of any specific, purposeful racist or discriminatory action or intent by individual members of such groups.

It is not uncommon for individuals who benefit from institutional racism by virtue of their membership in a particular group to not fully understand how it operates and how it provides them advantages not enjoyed by other groups. It is also not unusual for them to ignore or misread instances of racism that affect other people - often because such racism is not open and blatant. This does not mean that they themselves are racist. And pointing out their ignorance, lack of experience or dearth of empathy is not tantamount to calling them racist.

So, while I appreciate your mentioning several people who have studied and written on critical race theory, your list does nothing to support your claim that pointing out where people deny or defend racism is the equivalent of calling those persons racist because masking racism is racism in itself.

[Empowerer]

164. crickets for days . . .

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

71. Spoken like a true Teabagger! They denied that congressmen were called the N word.

They denied that people were spat upon. They denied that racism even exists.

Again, I see it here on DU on a daily basis!

And yes, there is racism, sexism, homophobia in the Democratic Party. There's no question about it. The Democratic Party is NOT morally pure!

I am a black woman, and yes, there is racism, sexism, homophobia and all kinds of hatred/discrimination within the black community itself. There are a lot of issues that we have to deal with in our own community. To acknowledge that fact doesn't mean that we're any more or less moral than other groups or cultures.

The same goes for the Democratic Party, and yes, also Democratic Underground.

[EffieBlack]

40. Dead spot on, as usual

But, boy, you sure did pinch a nerve! :-)

[Wait Wut]

44. It's more than that...

...or less, depending on how you look at it.

First, the OP (like most of us) has an entire group of people that will "auto unrec" (disgusting habit). Second, he was obviously too pro Pres. Obama, which earns another auto unrec. There are a lot of people here that would argue the sky is green because of their pettiness. I doubt many truly disagreed with him.

On the other hand, I have also seen claims of racism that were truly far out there and needed to be addressed. The link you provided is NOT one of those. The points made were those that I had noticed from the '08 campaign and have festered over the past 2+ years.

[GillesDeleuze]

55. thats all we are asking for. show us the objectionable stuff

so we can have a real discussion.

blaming progressives gets us nowhere.

[MadMaddie]

49. Sigh

If one is a minority in this country and has experienced racism....


I find the argument that if someone states that "Racism" exists among a group of people, many claim that it is playing the Race Card.

If I am black (which I am ) and someone refers to me as getting my job because of my race - who is playing the race card. Am I supposed to stand by and let that person get away with it?

President Obama didn't allude to his race until the Republicans played the Race Card.

How did they do that?
-He is not like us
-He is not one of us
-He doens't think like us
-He is not American enough
-His black side is radical
-He is not Christion enough
-He is not educated enough

Sorry, but this is bullshit. Until we acknowledge that racist exist in every political party we will not move ahead. The OP is right, we may not see the word "ni....r" used but I along with others understand the subtle references that are used. We have experienced it our whole lives.

President Obama has all sides attacking him with a variety of reasons but when our side attacks him they are starting to use the Right wing terminology etc. There is no excuse for it.

My question: Who coined the term Race Card?
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/285100.html
<snip>
Meaning
To attempt to gain advantage in an election by pandering to the electorate's racism. Also, more recently, to attempt (by a black person) to gain advantage by accusing another (usually a white person) of racism.

The more recent meaning, which refers to someone attempting to gain advantage by drawing attention to their race, became commonplace in the USA around the time of O. J. Simpson's trial for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Several US newspapers used the phrase to describe the tactics of Simpson's defense lawyers. For example, this piece by Roger Simon in The Daily Herald, October 1995:

"Why was playing the race card necessary in order for O. J. Simpson to go free? Because it was the only way for the defense to deal with the massive physical evidence against him."

<snip>
<snip>

[EffieBlack]

51. Insightful analysis

There's much to learn from your post.

[GillesDeleuze]

54. using google

About 1,250 results "racist gop" site:democraticunderground.com
About 3,400 results "racist republican" site:democraticunderground.com

Your search - "gop not racist" site:democraticunderground.com - did not match any documents.
Your search - "republican not racist" site:democraticunderground.com - did not match any documents.

facts. your friend.

[EffieBlack]

59. Thou really doth protest too much . . .

But in so doing, thou proveth the truth of the proposition.

[GillesDeleuze]

60. just show me the links. where are progressives masking racism?

if no links, why specifically accuse progressives? very curious. . .

[Empowerer]

74. You keep mischaracterizing what I wrote and then demanding that I prove it

I didn't say that "progressives mask racism."

I wrote that when instances of racism are pointed out, some progressives deny that racism is involved and try to offer other explanations for the situation and often accuse those of us who bring it up of playing into conservatives' hands and making it harder to really address racism. That's very, very different than accusing progressives of being racist or masking racism, as you claim I did.

This is obviously a topic that upsets and agitates you, for whatever reason. You claim that you want to have a real discussion about racism, however, I see nothing in any of your posts to indicate that you have made any effort in this regard - you seem to have little to say about this topic other than to try to hijack every thread that addresses it and accuse those of us who are trying to discuss it frankly and honestly of thinking and saying all kinds of things that we don't think and never said.

And you still don't seem to realize that you exemplify the very behavior and dynamic that my OP addresses.

[BklnDem75]

114. Using google

"the race card" site:democraticunderground.com

About 1,090,000 results (0.08 seconds)

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+race+card%22+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


That should narrow down your search. Plenty there on the first page.

[Empowerer]

117. :-)

[Number23]

98. MadMaddie, you are the BOMB.

President Obama has all sides attacking him with a variety of reasons but when our side attacks him they are starting to use the Right wing terminology etc. There is no excuse for it.

That is a truth that so many simply refuse to see.

[ClarkUSA]

62. Real progressives wouldn't do so. PUMA Jane Hamster Face calls herself one but she's not...

... given her love of black face "humor", her support for GOP clients of her media company, her "Kill The Bill" political ally Grover Norquist, her asking for teabagger support on Faux News, and her cheerleading for DLC Royal Hillary in 2007-2008.

You get my point.

[Mimosa]

78. Empowerer, I don't know any liberals who do what you're saying

I haven't seen anybody on DU excusing the rethugs in Congress. Is there a thread or two where you saw it?

[EffieBlack]

80. There have been numerous threads right here in which people who are ostensibly liberal

dismiss any suggestion that racism is at play in how Republicans deal with President Obama. I've watched people try to pick apart arguments, insist that each circumstance noted is the result of something other than racism and accusing those who point them out of overreacting, making it more difficult to deal with racism where it REALLY exists, etc.

I can't cite any specific post since that would violate DU rules against call outs, but here are links to a couple of threads that contain examples of what I'm referencing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x723596
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=201648&mesg_id=201648

[Skip Intro]

84. You'd have to be blind not to see that DU jumped the shark long ago on accusations of racism.

I supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries and was called racist more than once simply because I dared not support Obama. It was a common accusation.

Threads are many that accuse Southerners of racism, cops of racism, Republicans of racism, anyone who opposes Obama of racism, and it goes on and on. Chanting "racism" has become an all-purpose go-to charge for virtually any and all individuals, groups and situations that are not to a DUer's liking. There's a sad irony there if you think about it for a minute.

I agree fully with the poster upthread who correctly said that many here have realized such wanton use of the term has trivialized its true meaning.

And I'm glad to see this thread has the number of recs it deserves.

[EffieBlack]

86. People accuse others of all kinds of things, correctly and incorrectly - here and elsewhere

But, for some reason, racism is the only accusation that I'm aware of that triggers the kind of reaction being discussed here - it certainly is the only kind that I see people insist must not be used because it "trivializes its true meaning." For some reason, some people take it very personally when other people are accused of bigotry or prejudice and will jump in to either defend them or attack the person leveling the accusation. And, more often than not, its couched in a very paternalistic "you shouldn't talk about racism in this context because you'll make it hard to talk about it when it REALLY matters" - as if it the person issuing the warning is the arbiter of when and where it is appropriate to discuss race.

Compare this to other types of criticisms. This board is rife with accusations that Republicans, individually and collectively, are fascists. Yet I never see anyone jump in to counter such a claim or insist that the term "fascist" shouldn't be thrown around so freely because it "trivializes its true meaning." But issues of race and racism incites and entirely different kind of reaction, a reaction that is very troubling to many of us.

And I recall the back and forth during the primaries. I don't recall you ever being called a racist "simply because you dared not support Obama." Do you have any links?

Finally, the number of unrecs helps to prove the original point . . .

[Skip Intro]

87. No,

I don't have any links to me being called racist. I alerted on them and I'm sure the posts were deleted, but I wasn't the only one accused, and I not only experienced this, but saw others accused as well. If you doubt me, you are free to search. I won't be doing so, though.

As to your other thoughts in your reply, you're certainly entitled to your opinions, as am I to mine.

[EffieBlack]

88. If you were called a racist simply for not supporting Obama, that was wrong

But that doesn't obviate the point that criticizing someone for defending or denying the existence of racism is not the same as calling someone a racist.

[AtomicKitten]

100. Nobody was called racist for simply not supporting Obama.

Of course those that defended Geraldine Ferraro's disgraceful taunts regarding Obama wouldn't know the difference.

From Ferraro:

"If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this, as a potential real problem for Hillary? If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he's in? Absolutely not."

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

"Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

link: http://crooksandliars.com/2008/03/12/countdown-special-comment-sen-clinton-this-is-not-a-campaign-strategy-this-is-a-suicide-pact

As an uncomitted superdelegate, James Clyburn endorsed Obama late in the primary and this is how Clinton supporters behaved:

An angry and upset Rep. James Clyburn said Wednesday that his office has been deluged with nasty phone calls with racial overtones since his endorsement of Barack Obama a day earlier. Clyburn told FOX News Radio’s “Brian and the Judge” that the callers identified themselves as Hillary Clinton supporters. Clyburn, an African-American and the third ranking House Democrat, said a white intern in his office was so upset by the calls that she had to be consoled by other workers and left the office early.

“We got more vitriolic, nasty phone calls, really racially tinged phone calls in my congressional office, so much so, until one of the interns, a young lady who is not a stranger to politics … and she is not a black person, she left the office, had to be consoled because of the kinds of phone calls from people who identified themselves as Hillary Clinton supporters,” he said. Clyburn said some of the callers used “names that I would not repeat on this show today.”

“I was absolutely shocked, could not believe that this happened. I could understand people saying, ‘Why are you doing this or why would you not support Hillary Clinton?’ but to call me the kinds of names I have not heard since the ’40s and ’50s,” he said.

Clyburn said some of the callers threatened to “sabotage this election.” He added that he does not think Clinton understands her role in unifying the party.

link: http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/clinton_supporters_flood_james_clyburns_office_with_racist_statements

JClyburn interviewed by Keith Olbermann: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhRvHASvhRI

[Beacool]

95. You said it.

How about the way that AA who did not support Obama were treated during the primaries? They were called traitors, Oreos, uncle Toms, etc. Those who were in office received threats. The late Stephanie Tubbs Jones was quite vocal about it. Even John Lewis received threats of being primaried if he didn't change his endorsement (eventually he did). Of course no one in the media talked about it because it wasn't PC to do so.

If Obama is receiving criticism now it's mostly for his performance in office, not his race. If the economy was humming along and there were plenty of jobs, no one would give a rat's tail end if Obama was purple with pink polka dots. Skin color has nothing to do with job performance.

:shrug:

[EffieBlack]

102. The only connection your rant has to the topic is that you are engaging in exactly the behavior the

the OP describes.

Rather than address the issue we're discussing, you have resorted to a typical diversionary tactic - "racism is not an issue in how Obama is being treated because some black people who didn't support Obama were treated badly by somebody three years ago."

And your insistence that the President is being criticized "mostly for his performance in office, not his race," implicitly acknowledges that race is part of the equation. No one is claiming that every criticism against him is based on his race. But some the criticism is - which you even seem to recognize - and it is that element we are discussing.

And finally, your babbling about the relationship between job performance and race is pretty bizarre since this discussion has nothing to do with the President's job performance - or even the President, who isn't referred to in the OP and didn't come up in this discussion until he was brought up by folks who are doing exactly what the OP referred to.

[Beacool]

113. YOU are the one who is babbling.

The OP was referring to how Obama is being treated, even if his name was not specifically mentioned.

Please, there have been a myriad of posts about how Obama is treated poorly because of his race. Do you think that the majority of people would give a fig about his race if the economy was doing well?

Besides, the right would treat ANY Democratic president poorly regardless of race and gender.

:shrug:

[Empowerer]

118. You INFERRED that my OP referred to how Obama is being treated, although I said no such thing, nor

is that what I was talking about.

The insistence by you and other of interpreting my OP through the prism of your own biases and obsessions does nothing to change what I actually wrote, regardless how much you continue to try to argue about it.

[Beacool]

120. I'm done with this.

I don't care enough about the subject matter to continue arguing over it.

:shrug:

[Karenina]

121. Yus, Missus!

:CURTSY:

:rofl:BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!:rofl:

[seaglass]

158. Well why wouldn't anyone infer that when the 1st example you gave was to a thread about Obama?

Can you give an example of where progressives are fighting to protect conservatives from having their racism called out?

[killbotfactory]

90. Racism plays a big part in their desire to cut social programs

I don't see why it would be unthinkable that it could be behind their blind opposition to everything related to Obama.

[TheKentuckian]

93. Democrat does not equal liberal. What do the right leaning devotees of Clinton and Ferraro

have to do with liberals and progressives?

I'm sure your scenario plays out but I'm not seeing what you're talking in significant numbers. Certainly nothing even approaching the conservative and "centrist" aka Reagan Democrats.

[jaysunb]

96. Good post

sorry the recs got "wrecked." This is a discussion that needs to be had.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[Number23]

99. As intelligent as the OP sounds, do you seriously, TRULY believe

that you need to tell her what is in her "best interests?" Seriously?

[EffieBlack]

101. +1 And since the OP doesn't even refer to the president, the assumption

by several posters that it is a defense of him or an attack against anyone who disagrees with him shows the advanced state of Obama Derangement Syndrome that has infected this site.

[wndycty]

103. Exactly

:kick:

[Fearless]

109. So who was the OP talking about then?

[Enrique]

116. why is this in GDP?

if it's not about Obama? Is it about Herman Cain?

[EffieBlack]

119. ??? So any discussion of racism in this section MUST be about racism toward President Obama?

Whether the poster says so or not - and even if they specifically say it isn't?

Wow.

You sound ridiculous.

[Armstead]

133. The Obama Derange syndrome is caused by the...

"Obama can move us towrds the GOP Conservative position as much as he wants and that should never be questioned" virus.

As one who did misread the OP, I apologized.

[Fearless]

108. People who think themselves smart are most easily fooled because they don't think they can be fooled

[EffieBlack]

111. This is the kind of thinking that got a bunch of Tea Partyers elected

They thrive on anti-intellectual, "Who-do-you-think-you-are-thinking-you're-so-smart" attitudes like this.

I can't say whether the OP thinks she's smart. But I DO know from the intellect and rationality of her posts that she IS smart. And it's pretty clear that she's not easily fooled by much (if anything) around here.

[Fearless]

112. Anyone who thinks real progressives are protecting racists is fooling themself.

[Number23]

123. I feel the same way about many "progressives"

Who are so invested in the belief that they are smarter/more informed/more worldly than everyone else, that they are absolutely blind to the bigotry, the ignorance, the xenophobia, and the blanket stupidity that comes from so many on their side, including themselves.

Thank you for proving my point so beautifully.

[Empowerer]

107. Even more mind boggling is your sense of entitlement to lecture anyone about a post you obviously

either didn't read or failed to comprehend.

You really should try to first grasp the topic at hand before you try to try to patronize me. Otherwise, you will continue to look foolish.

[Fearless]

110. I am entitled to post my opinion on anything you or anyone posts here.

You are right. You are free to disagree with that opinion as well. And frankly I couldn't care less if you think I'm foolish.

[Karenina]

115. It's an AWM thang. We wouldn't understand!

:rofl::crazy::rofl:

:evilgrin:

[Number23]

124. Damn! You got that right

[Karenina]

132. As a matter of survival

WE MUST understand them. They have no need to understand US. In my lifetime, I have gotten a few on the path towards "getting it" as I know you have. Tim Wise "gets it" and is NOT a very popular white guy on this board. Wonder why...

[Number23]

134. Tim Wise is despised by so many here

But the difference between Tim and someone like Cornel is that Cornel is saying some of the stupidest most offensive things about Obama and doesn't give a damn if what he's saying is even true in an effort to get his name "out there." Cornell seems to have truly lost interest in connecting with black people since he has decided that constantly trashing Obama is much more important.

Wise on the other hand, speaks a truth that so many blacks (of just about every stripe) have seen and felt FIRSTHAND. When he talks about white racism, particularly white LIBERAL racism, there are few blacks that don't understand EXACTLY what he's talking about and are not nodding so hard their heads are about to fall off.

P.S. Check your PM. Some stuff posted in this thread is nothing short of comical in its utter and blatant hypocrisy. Folks here must really think some of us are stupid.

Edit: P.P.S. It is SOOO good to be able to talk to you again! Since my donor star died, I have missed talking to the people in AAIG. Since I don't plan on renewing my star, threads like this will probably be the only way we'll be able to chat.

[EffieBlack]

135. Tim WIse is so insightful and really lays out the issue beautifully

I wish more people paid attention to what he's saying.

[Karenina]

138. I believe his scholarship, sincerity and empathy

frighten many.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

149. I ADORE Tim Wise! Can you PM the same information, please?n/t

[guruoo]

137. Not surprised

Place has become literally overrun with RW 'visitors'.

[Empowerer]

140. It would be funny, if it weren't so pathetic - the extent to which some people will go to deny the

obvious - even to the point of doing EXACTLY what my OP describes (in some instances almost verbatim).

The denial, projection and, in come cases, outright viciousness visible in this thread - all in response to a rather simple observation - is quite revealing of a particular mindset.

I obviously hit a nerve. But it's sad that many of the very people who need to have their eyes open are so blind and closed-minded, they likely will NEVER be able to recognize the problem, much less take even a tiny step toward changing their ways.

[Karenina]

142. And folks wonder why I'm such a cynic.

I'm just glad I'm so old. I cannot abide the stupid much longer. The central issue of your post was an observation that calling out racism seems to be more an issue than what caused it. It's a discussion that needs to be had. I hardly think there is a "poc" left on this board who would dispute that but there are scant few remaining...

[guruoo]

143. The real problem isn't with

members who have a legitimate interest in being here, but those who came here for the
sole purpose of dividing, disrupting, and generally monkeywrenching their political opposition.

They both plant the fires, and fan the flames of fires planted by others.

One could consider them much like the political equivalent of VC sappers:


'The Viet Cong and N. Vietnamese used 'sappers' to attack friendly positions, usually in the dead of night.

The 'sapper' would move ever so quietly with his satchel charge to a friendly perimeter, penetrate the perimeter
if possible, and release his satchel charge that would detonate within seconds, once it was activated, much like a grenade !
Often the 'sapper' died in his attempt to vacate the perimeter, and sometimes by the satchel charge itself.



http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080823085237AAe5Wz7

[Karenina]

144. The REAL PROBLEM Empower's OP addressed

is distinctly AMERICAN in origin.

I find your take interesting, of value to explore, yet somehow incomplete in addressing the core issue. I've often been asked how I perceive the racism in my adopted land and how it differs from that in the land of my birth.

What I've experienced here is a simple-minded xenophobia, which is rather easily overcome with time and patience minus the tabloids. But there's a different kind of hard-wired hatred when one has lived, died, eaten, drunk, survived the worst with the "other" while determined to preserve a false narrative of "superiority."

It would be interesting if DUers were able to address the very narrow question she posed. It's NOT about Obama, the OP made NO MENTION OF HIM... It's about a destructive lemming response that we have yet to examine clearly. It would be in our best interests to do so NOW as the tactic is so effective.

How bout that blond TERRORIST, eh?

[Number23]

145. "How bout that blond TERRORIST"

Get 'em, girl!! :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

It's all part of a greater issue. The fact that so many were running around INSTANTLY condemning Muslims for the attack (and yes, many "liberals" were also quick to do this) and then when it turned out to be a blue-eyed blonde white man, silence. I would not be the slightest bit surprised if actual SYMPATHY were to be given to this man next ("he was just protecting his way of life!"). This is how things are done in the Western world. Remember Joseph Stack??

I personally believe that the "destructive lemming response" you mentioned is how so much racism is legitimized, excused and even accepted among so many in the dominant culture. The fear of also being branded with that broad brush makes many ignore and dismiss ANY attempt to brand something as racist, even when it so clearly is. The paralyzing fear alot of white people seem to have that their thoughts/behaviors/actions will be branded as racist leads them to dismiss damn near everything short of burning a cross in someone's yard or murder.

[Karenina]

150. Time to DUCK and COVER!!!

Economic kabuki sets off a new round of fireworks!!! :hide:

[Karenina]

168. And A-W-A-Y they go...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1632965

[Supersedeas]

146. and those who don't tow the line are 'sappers'? we DO have a lot to learn

about the President's supporters who are willing to fan their own flames.

[guruoo]

151. Either you missed the first sentence,

or, ????

As I said:
"The real problem isn't with members who have a legitimate interest in being here"

[Supersedeas]

154. then to identify racist and sappers, one needs to be more than sling the label

If there is a substantive policy dispute, this internet message board is as good a place as any to flesh that dispute out. But if silencing criticism is the real motive behind these labels, the problem isn't really a problem...the use of the sapper card and the racist card is just a political tactic used to deflect legitimate criticism about policy...which in the end, as discussed above, has the effect to trivializing the realing meaning of racism and political subversion.

[Karenina]

156. American society has a terminal infection of racism

that need not be so finely parsed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rpmek4s7VQ&NR=1

Empowerer's scope is quite narrow. Why is the accusation of racism worse that the circumstance that brought it on? The cover-up is worse that the crime. We have abundant examples of that phenomenon.

[Supersedeas]

160. I don't disagree with most of that

But if the accusations are going to be turned on folks posting on this message board, I would think that some parsing ought to be more definitive than what applies to the broad scope of American society in general or blanket accusations of cover-ups and other 'phenomenon.'

[guruoo]

157. Sorry. I noticed you can spell, so I assumed you could read. nt

[Supersedeas]

161. insulting my lagging ability to read between your lines doesn't help define

what you consider to be a 'legitimate interest' in being here

but you underhanded insult is duly noted for future reference

[guruoo]

162. OK...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

"Who is Welcome on Democratic Underground, and Who is Not

Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

We ban who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned."

[Supersedeas]

166. Well, that does separate some of the wheat--and thank you for that

reminder. It does reinforce the broad goals of these message boards as a place that promotes, rather than chills, open engagement with the political issues that impact all of us.

[ItNerd4life]

159. So Republicans hated Clinton because he was white? Sad, that people have to blame racism

instead of understanding that there are 2 completely opposing ideological beliefs in this country.

[Empowerer]

165. What's really bizarre is that you have so little understanding of this issue that you would actually

suggest that, because Republicans hated Clinton, who is white, it is absolutely impossible for even some of their hatred toward President Obama - or any other black person - could be based on racism.

Do you really believe that, as long as one hates a white person, they are by definition incapable of being a bigot?

[Supersedeas]

170. I believe that he is suggesting that political ideology itself is capable of producing

a type of hate which is separate and distinct from hatred found in a racist.

I don't believe he has the further onus of proving a negative...namely that on top of showing a perfectly reasonably non-race based motivation for hatred of a President, that he also has to show a perfectly water-tight absence of racism for his argument to make any sense. His argument makes sense on it's own. If anything, the onus to show that racism plays a material role in addition to the already quite easily established ideological motivations remains with those who want to make the racist argument.

I'm not saying that you can't show some evidence to suggest some racist motivations. For some individual members of Congress, it will be easier to prove than with other (Lamborn for instance). But thus far, political ideology on its face has a pretty sound evidentiary foundation for the hatred that we see--the hatred of President Clinton being a straight-forward example of it.

Moving the discussion from the Obama Administration to "any other black person" really goes beyond the original scope of the thread, no? So far, that stretch looks more like a strawman than a good faith consideration of the argument that he has forwarded regarding the hatred of President Clinton (ie. not only does he have to prove an absense of racism of the current President, but he would also have to prove an complete absence of racism of 'any other black person' before his argument would have any credence with you). If so, if that is really the burden two political opponents of different races bear, then I don't see how any substantive political disagreement might not be reduced to your non-falsifiable racist theory that you suggest is behind it all.

[ItNerd4life]

171. You said it beautifully! I know many people who don't like Obama

and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin. To blame racism is a cop out to actual dialogue on differences of political opinion.

[Empowerer]

172. So the fact that the people YOU know don't like the President for a reason other than race

means that NO one has racist views toward him?

I know some people who think that President Obama can do no wrong. Does that mean YOU feel that way?

I have yet to see anyone here claim that every criticism of the President is prompted by racism. That is a strawman argument thrown out by people who, for some unknown reason, want to deny that bigotry and racism have ANY role in any at all in our political or social discourse.

And, for some reason, whenever the issue comes up, those people are the first to jump in to the conversation to insist that those of us who are trying to have a discussion about it are blaming EVERYTHING on racism and are wrong, wrong, wrong - and ALWAYS wrong, wrong, wrong - as if even the mention of the possibility of the existence of racism is so deeply offensive to them that it cannot even be considered, much less uttered aloud.

Funny thing, though - these folks are much, much less concerned with or even interested in the sensitivities of other people who are offended by racism and bigotry - the people they accuse of being overly sensitive and "copping out."

This reaction is as predictable as Sunday following Saturday and is on full-blown display all over DU.

And the beat goes on.

[ItNerd4life]

176. Maybe it's because racism is the ONLY argument people

are using. Some people never ever consider that it could be Obama's policies is why people don't like him. You talk about generalizations. How about how the 'Tea Party is full of racists'. Isn't
that the mantra? Yet there are black tea party members. Hmm, maybe you should consider that there are other reason people don't like Obama, and it has nothing to do with race.

Funny thing, people scream racism instead of difference of opinion. This reaction is typical and is on full-blown display all over DU.

Many people hated Clinton just as vehemently as they hate Obama. That's NOT racism, but all over DU they hate Obama because he's black. So why did they hate Clinton?

Does racism exist? Absolutely, but to blame most people's hatred of Obama on racism, is demeaning to them and Obama's policies.

On Edit: LOL, take a look at the post immediately below mine to prove my point.

[Empowerer]

178. Who is using racism as the ONLY argument?

I certainly am not and never have. And I haven't seen anyone else do it either.

The real problem is that whenever someone suggests that racism is one of the factors in the mix, we are immediately shouted down by people who point to every other instance of NON-racist behavior to prove that racism can't possibly be any part of the problem.

No one is "screaming racism" - although that is a common smear used by people who can't seem to tolerate any discussion of racism at all.

No one is claiming that people hate Obama ONLY because he is black. But only the most ignorant would deny that race plays a part in some of the hatred toward Obama. And claiming that the fact that there are some black Tea Party members proves that plenty of other Tea Party couldn't POSSIBLY be bigots demonstrates a breathtakingly shallow understanding of this issue that is very troubling to see in a fellow Democrat.

Your post raises several questions:

1. Why are you so insistent on denying and defending right wing Republicans who behave in such an offensive manner yet ignore and criticize our fellow Democrats who are trying to tell you something they have experienced and understand?

2. Why are you so quick to give the benefit of the doubt to people on the other side yet dismiss the concerns of other Democrats?

3. Is there any other issue, other than race and racism, that causes you to jump through so many hoops to defend right wing Republicans from criticism by Democrats?

[Karenina]

182. You're a Queen. I'm old and terminally tired...

But shall support you in any way I can. Thank you for taking up the flag we've carried so far. :loveya:

Tante K.

[TheKentuckian]

173. Not me. I consider the TeaPubliKlans to be a terrorist, racist organization.

The open terrorism is new, the racism is a long term issue.

It isn't a secret, what the hell do folks think "The Southern Strategy" is?

That said, the issue is primarily a "sensible centrist" thing. You know the types with a lot of "Republican friends and family that will give you the shirt off their back" that must be defended because they are really good people.