Writing About Writing About Racism
Last week someone on Facebook called me a racist. In fact he said his new nickname for me was “racist dave”. I would probably be deeply offended by this if not for the fact that just a few posts earlier I had called him a racist. I re-read the entire thread and decided then and there that my next blog post would be about racism.
Why not? Like almost everyone I have witnessed and/or been a victim of some sort of discrimination, be it racial or religious. I consider myself to be extremely open-minded and non-judgmental, so writing about racism should be easy, right?
Wrong.
I started by reading the original exchange out loud to my sister, who very quickly picked up on something I hadn’t. My statement was only non-racist because of my point. However, if you missed my point then the statement would in fact appear racist. The person to whom the comment was directed missed my point. It is entirely possible he missed my point because of the racial angle, however the angle was unavoidable to make my point.
The discussion, which can be found here, began with the breaking news of the shootings at Ft. Hood. A friend of mine, whom in her previous work in mental health had interviewed Timothy McVeigh for the government in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, posted on Facebook looking to see what information anyone might have. I replied with what little I had heard,and another person immediately replied that it looked like a sleeper cell to him. I suggested not jumping to conclusions.
Then the name came in. Nidal Hassan, or as the other poster whom I will simply call PC put it “Nidal Hassan. hmm.” This lead to a back and forth on assumptions based on his name. At one point I tried to draw a parallel between PC’s assumptions and the treatment of Asian Americans during WW II. This is where things got ‘complicated’.
See, PC happens to be of Chinese descent, and has a Chinese last name. Since PC was failing to note that an Arabic name does not make one a Muslim, which in turn does not make one a jihadist I decided to drive the point home by pointing out that he may not have liked the way he would have been treated in America during WW II because of his last name. My point, which I mistakenly assumed to be self-explanatory, was that to many he would have just been the hated “yellow man” so regularly portrayed in political cartoons and ostracized. I already knew by his last name that he was not, in fact, Japanese.
His reaction was immediate and angry. Clearly I was a racist, according to PC. My assumption that he was Japanese showed that I could not tell the difference between one Asian and another. In fact, I can. My whole point was that one could just as easily make a choice not to differentiate, as he had in the case of Hassan. I thought my point obvious. However, my sister made me see that while it was obvious to me it may not have been obvious to PC. She pointed out that when one has been a victim of discrimination, as she and I have both been for our Judaism, it is easy to assume that a comment that miscategorizes you is racist, even if the miscategorization is the point.
OK. Lesson learned. I decided that in writing about racism I would discuss the issue of multiple perspectives. I would look at how difficult it could be to differentiate between the appearance of racism and actual racism. All I had to do was clearly define the various forms of racism.
Oh boy.
It turns out that we have come up with so many different ‘types’ of racism you need a scorecard to keep track of them all. In researching for my article I came across writings about innate racism, blatant racism, subtle racism, institutional racism, reverse racism, pathological racism, learned racism, and on and on. What’s more, every attempt to define one of these terms wound up borrowing from or being practically the same as another. I realized that if I tried to write about the different types of racism I would wind up with a dissertation, not a blog post. I also realized it would be a lousy dissertation at best.
My next idea was to go back to the roots of my conversation with PC. I would write about racism from much the same perspective as the Supreme Court wrote about pornography, the “I know it when I see it” argument. Of course since I had just learned that how you see it depends on your own racial history I would need to include examples of perspective. All I would need to accomplish that was to put myself in the shoes of a black man, an Indian, a Pakistani, a Sunni, a Shiite, a Palestinian, a Tutsi, a Hutu, a….. oh, crap.
Did you know that technically speaking, there is no such thing as a Hutu or a Tutsi? Seriously, these tribes were created by the colonists in order to foment internal discord and keep the Rwandans from turning on the occupiers. No one foresaw that these labels would stick to such a degree that eventually these two ‘tribes’ would become involved in one of the largest genocides of the modern age.
Then again, all racism is manufactured, regardless of the type. One person, or group of people, are somehow slighted by another group, or require some ‘other’ to blame for their circumstances, or need to distract the masses from a real enemy, or channel a fear born out of personal trauma, or justify a behavior – and thus racism is born. In the end any and all racism requires rationalization of the irrational, or at the very least the projection of the behavior of a select few onto all of those that share some characteristics with those few.
So now I realize that trying to write about actual racism is a lost cause for all but the best and brightest. Read President Obama’s books, or his speech on racism (most likely written by Jon Favreau) and you can begin the process. In the end racism appears to me to be all about inequality, perceived or actual, and thus I can not really write about it. To put myself into the shoes of anyone other than myself on the subject could be perceived to be – could actually be – racist. To write about it purely from my own perspective would be interesting to some, and perhaps open a few eyes to the antisemitism that is still prevalent in America, but it will not open any new doors to anyone who has not witnessed it. I certainly wouldn’t try to convince anyone that the election of President Obama is in and of itself an end to a certain sort of racism. If racism is all about perception then individual events, no matter how large, can not mark a beginning or an end.
So what is left? I suppose that by avoiding denial of racism, pointing it out, convincing people to try to understand that existence itself is a subjective experience and we can not hope to fully understand what does or doesn’t motivate an individual let alone a group, I can hope to make a difference. By “knowing it when we see it” and not being afraid to say so – like pointing out that many who call Obama a socialist/communist/Nazi without knowing the meaning of those terms are on some level really just avoiding using the N word, we can make a difference. But try to write about what it is specifically and then define how as a group we solve a problem that is a result of seeing ourselves as groups? Oy.
Matthew Hoh Resigns: State Department Official Quits Over Afghan War
As a supporter of Obama’s from day one, with a strong belief that he intends to do the right thing, I believe he should pay very close attention to this resignation letter. I think it is a spot on analysis of the situation. Even Charlie Wilson, the Republican ex-Congressman largely responsible for the Afghan success against the Soviets, is saying given a choice between fighting this war and personally fighting a chainsaw he’d choose the chainsaw.
If we wait for the “right time” or “right strategy” to leave, we will be there forever, or until our own system fails under the weight just as the Soviets did. In order to get to Al Qaeda we interjected ourselves into a decades old civil war. We need to extricate ourselves from it now. Any illusion that how many Afghanis die is changed by our presence is just that. The only thing changed by our presence is how many americans die, and how many Afghans look out beyond their own borders at America as the enemy, thus fueling Al Qaeda. We need to get out yesterday.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
What are we anyway?
Pop Quiz time:
Question 1: How many words do the American Heritage Dictionary definitions of Democracy and Capitalism share in common?
Answer: 4
Question 2: What are those words?
Answer: and, of, a/an and the
Before I see Capitalism: A Love Story, the new film by Michael Moore, I wanted to jot down some of my own thoughts on how we define ourselves as a country. This way if we have the same ideas no one can accuse me of ripping him off, and if we have different ideas I can point out how much smarter than him I am.
Seriously though, this subject has been on my mind a lot during the health care debate. It seems to have become commonplace to discuss capitalism and democracy as if they are interchangeable. This implies that you can not have one without the other. This assumption has becoming a leading factor not just in the ‘public option’ debate, but in our foreign policy as well. And it is dead wrong.
Let me be honest up front. I am a strong believer in our constitutional democracy. I am also a strong believer in capitalism. What I am not is an absolutist. In fact it is impossible to reconcile democratic absolutism and capitalist absolutism. Elements of each are in direct opposition to elements of the other.
Let’s start with the dictionary, shall we? Without any further adieu, the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition (2009) proudly presents capitalism and democracy:
cap·i·tal·ism (kāp’ĭ-tl-ĭz’əm)
n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
de·moc·ra·cy (dĭ-mŏk’rə-sē)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
- Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
- A political or social unit that has such a government.
- The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
- Majority rule.
- The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
So, starting at the root, we can see that we are dealing with two entirely different animals, one an economic system and the other government by the people. If you compare democracy to fascism you might say “one is a basset hound, the other is a rottweiler”. I am not sure why you would say that, but if you did it would at least be worth trying to figure out. However, to compare democracy and capitalism you might say “one is a basset hound, the other is a dishwasher”. I am not sure why you would say that either, but if you did people wouldn’t even try to figure it out. If you were at a bar, you would probably be cut off.
However, what most people would likely say is that they are both basset hounds or both rottweilers or both dishwashers. Do you see my point? If so, can you possibly explain it to me? I’m getting a little lost here.
Seriously though, the point is that you could substitute any supportive or pejorative word for the dogs and have a debate; they are after all the same animal – a system under which people are organized. Compare either of them to capitalism and the analogy falls apart. Capitalism can function in some form or other under a democratic, fascist, or even (to some degree) a communist system (see China today).
Hong Kong still has an ownership society after being returned to China. Nazi Germany remained largely capitalist. However, the utilities in Hong Kong belong to the state.
Pop Quiz #2
Question 1: How many times does the word Capitalism or a derivative thereof appear in the constitution and all of the amendments?
Answer: Zero
Question2: How about the Declaration Of Independence?
Answer: Zippo, zilch, nada
So, as we debate health care, and government bailouts and the many other things that are bound to come down the pike, let’s keep in mind that we are a Democratic Republic, not a Capitalist Democracy, by law. Capitalism is a choice, and generally a good choice. However, anyone making the claim that regulating or incorporating elements of other economic systems into American capitalism is “unpatriotic” is showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what we are. The very concept of “government by consent of the governed” allows for fundamental change to our economic system as the will of the people evolves, as long as it does not interfere with the democratic principles of the Declaration and the laws of our land. To say anything else is, in and of itself, unpatriotic.
Condition Critical (Thinking) Conclusion – What Next?
In my last few posts I have given my outlook on the loss of critical thinking skills in the US and how mass media, television in particular, has contributed to this. I admit it can be enough to make you want to move to …. oh, I don’t know, say Mars perhaps. Unfortunately that won’t work for two reasons; the atmosphere is inhospitable to human life and Lyndon LaRouche wants to colonize it. Come to think of it, the second part could make life here a lot better, seeing as LaRouchites are the ones mass-producing Obama-as-Hitler placards.
So we are left with the good old “America, love-it-or-leave-it” decision. Well, it just so happens that I love this country – or at least the ideas that make up what this country is supposed to be, so I’m sticking; and as long as I’m sticking I’m going to put forward some ideas to make things better – because screaming at my TV is starting to make my head hurt. To do this I am going to appear to digress for a minute or two, but I swear it all comes together.
In 2004 I joined Election Protection, a new nonpartisan NFP started by some recent Columbia University law grads and students, sponsored in part by People For The American Way. The idea for Election Protection was born at a study session one night shortly after the Supreme Court handed down it’s decision in Bush Vs. Gore, stopping the Florida recount and thus giving the presidency to George W. Bush. The students were concerned by two things, the apparent unconstitutionality of the Court agreeing to hear the case in the first place** and the evidence of misinformation campaigns that had cropped up as journalists looked more closely at what had happened not just in Florida but elsewhere. While they realized that since there was nothing they could do about the gaping flaw that had been revealed in our system of checks and balances there was a need to make sure things never got that far again.
What they came to realize is that regardless of where any plans for voter fraud, intimidation, or misinformation originated that they could only be carried out at the local level, at the polling stations and in the various local Boards of Election. In other words, keeping elections fair was a “ground game”. If you wanted to keep mischief at bay you had to be where the mischief occurred.
Thus an organizing concept was born. By partnering with local chapters of national organizations, grassroots organizations, and local union chapters and operating fully in the open they created an all-American equivalent of the poll monitoring we have often done for other countries. However they added two new twists, proactively countering misinformation campaigns prior to election day and creating a legal network that could act to stop fraud or rights violations on election day before the polls closed. Volunteers would go door-to-door in neighborhoods where posters had been hung or calls made trying to make people question if they could vote (fake state ID requirements, etc.), when they could vote (even number houses on Tuesday, odds, on Wednesday, moved back one week if it rains, etc. etc.) and where they could vote (false information as to polling places and times). These volunteers were all trained on the specifics of local, county, state, and national voter rights and provided a summary flyer of the same. The drill was simple – ask the person at each residence if they knew if they were registered, how to register, when and where to vote and what if anything they needed to bring with them. Discussion of individual candidates, issues or political parties was strictly prohibited.
On election day everything switched gears. Instead of letting people know how they could vote, the job became making sure that no one stopped them from legally voting. Anywhere that Eelction Protection was present the Board of Elections was informed. They were told why we were there and what we intended to do. Specifically, we would stand the legal distance required from the polls and keep a lookout. If we saw any attempts at voter intimidation we would right up a report and call an 800 number, from which a civil rights attorney would be dispatched to the scene. If rights had been violated they would contact another lawyer, already located at the local courthouse, who would file any necessary motions.
The test run was in congressional districts in Florida and Pennsylvania in 2002, districts where suspicious and illegal behavior had been reported in 2000. The program proved to be very effective. In several locations illegal police blockades were called off. In one location Immigration Officers standing right at the polls were forced to leave. This was particularly important because in Florida after 9/11 it was not uncommon for Immigration to hassle legal residents, bringing them in for questioning for no reason, thus US citizens of foreign descent were scared. If anyone came out of the polling place without an “I voted” sticker they would be asked by EP if they had been able to vote. Where the law allowed a person to be assisted in voting they could then invite EP into the polling place, where EP would inform the poll operators of why the voter did in fact have the right to vote. Most often this resulted in the person being allowed to place their ballot.
In 2004 the program went national and I joined. I was sent to Phoenix, AZ. In 2002 there had been several attempts to misinform voters in the poorest communities about their rights, and about where and when they could vote. This was happening again in 2004. I spent two days going door to door in an area where posters had been placed just days earlier with false information about polling places and times. I met a lot of people who intended to vote, but had the wrong information and provided them with the right one. On election day I was assigned to a polling place where there were, fortunately, no problems. In fact the Phoenix Board of Elections, which had been very skeptical of EP’s presence, was so impressed that when lines started to get long at the end of the day and there was concern that not everyone would get to vote they deputized us so we could actually go in and help run the election. It was an amazing three days, culminating with the nightmare of going to the hotel and watching the news from Ohio. Still, I found the work very rewarding and went to Philadelphia for the 2006 midterm elections and to Ohio for the 2008 presidential election. Wherever they need me to go in 2010 and 2012, I’ll be there.
Yes, I would love it if everyone who reads this decides “Gee, I want to do that” and joins EP, but that is not my point. My point is that what we need today to counter the massive misinformation campaigns that take advantage of the lack of critical thinking to convince people that their way of life is somehow being threatened when it is not, is some sort of equivalent – an Information Protecton program. Theoretically that is what 24 hour news should be providing, but as I laid out in my last post that is no longer their mission.
How would such a program work? I would love to be able to follow that question with a manifesto for the information age, but I don’t have one (not yet, anyway). What I do have are some ideas of what such a program would have to look like to be accepted and as well as some ideas of what it should do:
- In order for an “IP” program to be acceptable their would have to be NO question as to its nonpartisan nature. If anyone has any ideas on how to pull that off, I am all ears.
- Any IP Program would have to make all materials it disseminated available to local government and local press for scrutiny. Printing the entire text of any handouts in the public notices section of local papers should be part of that.
- Where a specific, documented lie is told, the documentation itself must be provided along with the refutation. For example, the now (in)famous Joe Wilson “You Lie” should be countered with a flyer that states and reprints verbatim the specific sections of each bill that specifies that neither government subsidies for health insurance nor a public option wuld be available to illegal aliens.
- In making the case for actual statistics an IP program would have to be able to cite the source’s credentials and independence. It should also be able to show the relationships between statistics that are being used that may not be accurate and their sourcing.
In other words, an IP program needs to do the work that the mass media no longer does. This still leaves the question of how do you get millions of people who have not been taught critical thinking and have nested within a media-driven comfort zone to listen to all of this unanswered. I don’t have the full answer to that question, but I can think of two things that would be crucial:
- The most important element of success is personal contact. Information has to be disseminated in a local manner, with people going door-to-door. Enough work has to have been done in advance to make the IP system respected as nonpartisan that people from the left and the right will be willing to answer the door.
- The main goal CANNOT be to convince people that they are being lied to, or that they should support one position over another. The goal must be to show them that they can not always (in fact, rarely) trust information that is spoon-fed to them, and to help them see how they can find out more for themselves and reach their own conclusions. To re-use an earlier example, it is not as important to convince them that Joe Wilson was lying as it is to convince them that they should not assume he is telling the truth because Fox says he is – but rather to show them why, when the nation is caught up in an argument such as the one we are in now, it is important that they do their own research and reach their own conclusions – and then to teach them HOW.
Is this achievable? I honestly don’t know. What I do know is that any such attempt will require an enormous effort and be met with a huge amount of resistance from lobbyists and even media on all sides. It will be called an indoctrination program by those who oppose it on the right and it will be seen as interference by those on the left – especially when critical thinking might not lead to the conclusions one side or the other wants. This is profoundly true in health care, where both sides HAVE had good ideas, though you couldn’t tell that through all the noise. The end-of-life discussions that became demonized as death panels and shoved out of the bills were in fact a Republican amendment, and I have yet to hear an argument against the Republican insistence on interstate competition that makes any critical sense to me.
Obviously, the elephant in the room is our entire educational system needing an overhaul, but even if we did that today we wouldn’t really see the results for another 18 – 20 years. If we can get back to teaching critical thinking in schools and make sure that everyone can and does get a quality education then this will all be moot. Until then we need to take action now so that people will know the facts and understand when they are or are not working towards their own interests. I have tried over the last week to discuss why I think we are where we are, and spitballed a few ideas on how we might start to work our way out of it. Am I crazy to think we can? Maybe – but I look forward to the debate. Speaking of which, anyone reading this on Facebook please click through to the blog (thetruthmachine.wordpress.com) and post your comments there so everyone can see them.
Coming next week – something lighthearted, I promise.
**Two books that look at this question in detail are Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 by Alan M. Dershowtiz, and The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President by Vincent Bugliosi. Dershowtiz’s book is an easier read, but also clearly partisan. Bugliosi’s book is denser, but an extremely convincing legal argument.
-
Recent Comments
David Norman on Facing Myself on Facebook … Doug Haxall on Facing Myself on Facebook … David Norman on Facing Myself on Facebook … Michael Weiss on Facing Myself on Facebook … David Norman on Facing Myself on Facebook …
-
Archives
- February 2010 (1)
- November 2009 (2)
- October 2009 (2)
- September 2009 (6)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
