The racist card is textbook strawmanship. As opposed to having to address whether her comments were, as Obama said, "wrongheaded" and "absurd," Ferraro gets to debate something that only she can truly judge—the contents of her heart.
It's a clever and unassailable move: How would you actually prove that Ferraro is definitively a racist?
By being clear on what racism is.
Why do U-People always think everyone is a racist?
Well, everything in America is looked at through, measured in terms of, categorized and stored by race. So we know you have thoughts and opinions about us. Then we look at everything the society produces that depicts us. We consider that to be tangible evidence of the collective attitude. So now we know that the collective opinion of our race is negative.This is a competitive disadvantage, and when our abilities are immediately discounted to the degree that we can be made to fit people's preconceptions as a tactic, we feel the tactitician and the one who executes the tactic is racist. When the tactic succeeds, we feel those who hold the preconceptions that were played on are racist.
I didn't make this up for Gerry. And that last paragraph precisely describes what she did...and what Robert Johnson did...and what Bill Shaheen did...and what "Pig" Penn did...in fact, it's what Mrs. Bill ("To the best of my knowledge") Clinton did.
I feel totally free to refer to them as racists. They passed my preexisting test with flying colors.
Playing the Racist Card
Ferraro's comments about Obama were racist. Why can't we say that?
Posted Friday, March 14, 2008, at 12:11 PM ET
There is peculiar bit of jujitsu that white public figures have employed recently whenever they're called to account for saying something stupid about black people. When the hard questions start flying, said figure deflects them by claiming that any critical interrogation is tantamount to calling them a racist, which they most assuredly are not. Last year, Bill O'Reilly took a jaunt up to Harlem's famed Sylvia's and returned with the news that blacks had learned the basics of table manners and developed opposable thumbs. When Media Matters attacked O'Reilly for his voluminous ignorance, he angrily accused his critics of distorting "a positive discussion on race and accusing me of racism."
As Don Imus was being drummed off the air, journalists and Washington oligarchs assembled to assure us all of Imus' decency, pointing to his good deeds on behalf of children with cancer and claiming that despite his penchant for caricaturing black people, he surely was no racist. Michael Richards marred his career by laying into a couple of hecklers with a textbook deluge of hate speech, but what disturbed him most was the fact that someone out there may have inferred that he was, you know, racist. "I'm not a racist," Richards told David Letterman. "That's what's so insane."
It gives me no joy to report that Geraldine Ferraro has now applied to join the ranks of the obviously nonracist. I was 8 when she ran for vice president and vaguely aware that a party that would promote a woman for an executive office might be a party that would one day give a kid like me a fair shake. Thus I've retched while watching Ferraro beeline to any television studio that would have her, flaunting her rainbow bona fides, and claiming that she's being attacked "because she's white" and demonized as a racist.
"The sad thing is that my comments have been taken so out of context," Ferraro told Diane Sawyer, "and been spun by the Obama campaign as racist."
When the New York Times reached Ferraro at home, having resigned from the Clinton campaign, she doubled down: "If you point to something that deals with race, you're immediately a racist?" When asked whether she was sorry, she responded, "I am sorry that there are people who think I am a racist."
The racist card is textbook strawmanship. As opposed to having to address whether her comments were, as Obama said, "wrongheaded" and "absurd," Ferraro gets to debate something that only she can truly judge—the contents of her heart.
It's a clever and unassailable move: How would you actually prove that Ferraro is definitively a racist? Furthermore, it appeals to our national distaste for whiners. It's irrelevant that the Obama campaign never called Ferraro a racist. It's also irrelevant that Ferraro said the same thing of Jesse Jackson in 1988. And it's especially irrelevant that Ferraro apparently believes that Obama's Ivy League education, his experience as an elected official, and his time of service on the South Side of Chicago pale in comparison with the leg-up he's been given as a black male in America. By positioning herself as a victim of political correctness run amok, Ferraro stakes out the high ground of truth telling.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
By positioning herself as a
When everybody knows she told a lie. A common narrative (of white victimhood) but a lie nonetheless.
See?
This is why I keep insisting it's expedient to criticize the action rather than the person.
When you label a white person "racist," this will always, always be the response. Mr. Ferraro played it to the letter: "I've spent forty years..blabla".
It might not be as accurate to do so, but addressing the action provides a way to push this tactic off the table: "Ms. Ferraro, what you said was a racist statement."
"You're calling me a racist?"
"No, I'm saying that statement judges Mr. Obama unfairly on the basis of his race. That's what a racist statement is."
As a matter of fact, Mr. Obama played it perfectly. He called her comments wrongheaded and absurd. She has been so unable to defend her remarks that she has fallen back on the "you're calling me a racist" bleat. There may be a few folks around who still defend what she said, but there aren't many.
Quaker - it may be better to
Quaker - it may be better to condemn the sin as opposed to the sinner but folks like Ferraro and they are legion in America will not even cop to the fact that their utterances are even racist. These folks actually believe that they are speaking truth to power. The reality is that they have a messianic itch all right, but its to put black folks in our presumed place. That is, subordinate to them. How else, for example, can we explain Don Imus referring to a group of COLLEGE basketball players as "nappy-headed hos"?
This is why I keep insisting
See that definition of racist up there?
When someone fits that definition, I'm calling them a racist.
Ferraro is a racist.
When someone fits that
I'm starting to understand that "racist" correctly applies to a lot of statements, actions, attitudes, and people that most white Americans wouldn't recognize as being racist.
You have observed that white people react to the term "racist" even more forcefully than black people react to the term "nigger". Others here have pointed out that almost all white Americans are racist to some extent.
So while it's correct to call these things racist, if you want to advance a conversation or an agenda among white people, don't you risk turning off a majority of your audience from the start?
So while it's correct to
If.
What I, personally, say happens to be accessible to white folks with any degree of openness at all. Not saying they'll all agree, but they understand. That is a happy coincidence.
I want Black folks to see reality with clarity. Where this involves race issues, much racism is symbolic and actually powerless. Seeing that both cuts the damage you take to the initial shock of recognizing you just got hated on, and leaves you more cabable of handling The Real Deal. I want Black folks to recognize there's a difference between individual and collective issues (the line was blurred to invisibility in the 60s) and that you should make the most powerful choice in both cases.
My audience is Black folks, in particular those who have a lot of dealings with white folks.
So while it's correct to
See, there we go with these expectations again. And, here as well as the other thread with Zenpundit, I want Joe to talk about this in the open. Last I checked, Joe came here and not the other way around. So this idea of his is complicated by that fact alone, let alone this idea that runs through a lot of what (White) people say.
Seriously? Where does this idea come from? Why do White Americans feel like African-Americans have to "advance a conversation or an agenda" among White people, for White approval or inspection, etc., etc.?
What is that all about, Joe? (Note: Before you said you "came here" with an open mind. Emphasis: "CAME HERE.")
If he doesn't answer, I
If he doesn't answer, I won't blame him. He asked a question of me, and that's legit.
He asked a question of me,
lol
My audience is Black
OK, so it makes sense for you to cut through the bs and call a racist a racist, but I think Quaker was talking about speaking to a wider audience. So I guess I kind of agree with both of you.
There was an "If" in my question. Prometheus's response was that the question doesn't apply to him. I guess it doesn't apply to you either.
Let's try this one. While it's correct to call these things racist, if I want to advance a conversation or an agenda among white people, don't I risk turning off a majority of my audience from the start?
let me use myself as an example.
I can admit that I have some racist feelings, thoughts and attitudes. I can only admit this because I believe that
So I can admit that I'm racist to some extent, but if someone I don't know were to call me racist, I'd react as Prometheus predicted because I know that most people associate racism with the white bedsheet, hate fueled kind.
If someone wants to point out a racist thing I've done or said, and they start by calling me a racist, were going to spend a lot of time on that before we ever get to the thing I need to fix.
I also have a slight problem with Quaker's approach because, while it can force people to take a close look at their actions, it doesn't force them to consider the underlying attitudes that support those actions.
Truth, not strategy.
I understand what you're saying. You're talking truth. I'm talking mere strategy. And we're talking about different audiences too.
When Ms. Ferraro was confronted with the label "racist," she made a predictable retreat. Just like any other white person accused of racism, she hurried to pull the "I have black friends" ploy. (Ms. Ferraro did this with the "I've been working for forty years" thing.)
But like I said, I'm talking about strategy. I'm talking about how best to call out Ms. Ferraro's remarks in the media and cutting off her inevitable retreat. You're talking about truth. These aren't the same thing.
Sooner or later, in order to
Sooner or later, in order to buid a true thing you have to step away from the false thing. It's that simple as far as I see.
That's just what I was saying.
Joe, you put your finger right on the reason I prefer this strategy. When someone (Ms. Ferraro in this case) makes a baldly racist statement in public, her "underlying attidutes" aren't interesting to anyone except maybe her. Her statement, on the other hand, matters very much to Mr. Obama's campaign and to anyone who would like to see him elected president.
Accusing Ms. Ferraro of being a racist will trigger a predictable reaction and open an impossible debate. Accusing Ms. Ferraro of saying something racist limits the debate to an analysis of a couple of dozen words.
Can't argue there.
Can't argue there, mister. Expedience can be the enemy of truth.
Quaker, The problem with
Quaker,
The problem with your argument is that no one actually confronted Ferraro with the label 'racist'. She wrapped herself in it to facilitate her own 'don't-call-me-a-racist' retreat.
This ain't new to Black folks. We've watched for years white folk get caught 'out there', then become all righteously indignant over an overzealous, imaginary lynch mob.
New day, old sh!t.
Other than intent, is there really an 'debate' to facilitate?
As I said, Sweet...
As I said, I think Mr. Obama played the follow up perfectly. He called out her statement as "wrong-headed" and "absurd."
Didn't call her anything.
Basically, I find myself in agreement with the author of the article P6 links, above.
Joe, same question: So I
Joe, same question:
What is all this about? What does any of it have to do with anyone here? Indeed, what is your point? It should be clear that this was rather disingenuous:
I don't know how that's functionally any different from what you started with. In the end, you still insisted on not talking about what YOU want to do in terms of "advancing conversations..." but, instead, you kept talking about the different approaches (P6's vs. Quaker's) with the same underlying assumption and expectation that African-Americans should, must or otherwise want to "advance a conversation or an agenda among white people" when that hardly makes sense in the context of this blog which, again, is a place YOU sought out, not the other way around.
It's as if you expect to be engaged in a certain way because you are White because you assume we are trying to reach you. I'm questioning why you make that assumption and then compound that error by saying "you can't reach me by saying X" with the obvious idea of dictating how Black people approach a conversation that was never attempted in the first place.
You're saying -- i.e. your argument-position -- "you have to talk to me this way" when no one has expressed a desire or need to talk to you. As you noted, the idea didn't apply to me or P6. It doesn't really mesh with Quaker's either. I'm just trying to figure out how you're trying to make this blog that you CAME TO into an effort on the part of P6 and/or the African-American posters here to appeal to, establish a dialogue with, or otherwise seeking a conversation with White Americans. I'm sure that's happened plenty of times here but P6's answer to you is the opposite of the mission statement/position you want him/us to have.
I'd just like to know WHY. I just happen to see that a lot. I'm hoping you can explain why it's important it to be that way for you.
Nquest, I honestly can't
Nquest, I honestly can't find what I wrote that made you feel that I was insisting that I be treated or engaged in a certain way, but I'll take you at your word that you read that in what I wrote.
Perhaps you can take me at my word that I appreciate the opportunity to come here, and I have no expectations at all about how others here should treat me. I simply used myself as an example to explain my question. As I read it, the conversation was in the context of public responses to public examples of racism. To me, that includes speaking to white people.
Actually, no. Unlike you and Prometheus, the question does in fact apply to me. If I had thought about it a little more, I would have asked it that way from the start.
Prometheus, you wrote
I'm intrigued, but I can't say that I really understand what you mean. Can you point me to something that explains that?
Individual issues are about
Individual issues are about an individual's condition. Collective issues are about a collective's condition. If it were a game, collective issues would be about the rules while individual issues would be about actually playing.
Speaking of "collective
Speaking of "collective issues"... What's up with all this false consensus stuff? Joe does that with his question. Zenpundit says "collectivist" with a boogeyman undertone and White folks in general play the "patriot" card regarding Rev. Wright's collected soundbytes (and before him, Michelle Obama) all under the arrogant assumption that theirs is definitive and universal in each respect.
More than anything, there's one thing I just have problems with: White folks in America who have a history of being on the wrong side of "race" thinking their in a position to lecture Black folks about what racism is/isn't and what to do about it.
Do me a favor,
Do me a favor, NQuest...don't chase him out.
Joe, I asked you: what is
Joe, I asked you: what is your point? I asked you: what does [what you have to say] have to do with anyone here?
(Okay, P6)