Racist, it’s the new N#$%&r

July 3rd, 2008 By: Claudia, Assistant Editor | Tags:

Why when it talks like a bigot, and walks like a bigot, it’s not bad to call it a bigot.


OK, I’ll admit it. I’ve had it.

I’ve had it with the constant questioning about Obama’s patriotism. I’ve had it with the damn flag-pin. I’ve had it with the rumors about being a Muslim, or having a Muslim father, or being born in Africa. I’ve had it with the word “exotic”.

But more, oh so much more than that, I’ve had it to HERE with the coddling bloggers and press give to wilfully and profoundly ignorant and prejudiced people.

And I’m not talking about the strategists and politicians who take advantage of this to smear Obama. No, I’m taking aim at the sacrosanct always-innocent American voter, the last person on whom media ever decides to lay blame.

Let’s start in West Virginia, for instance in this video:

YouTube Preview Image

The lady in the yellow shirt, who says first that Obama was born in Africa and then that he’s a Muslim. She is a bigot, plain and simple. There is NO excuse for that sort of thing. Bending over backwards to try to explain it away or being understanding will not cut it. The other older lady in the video is much more discreet, and probably (hopefully) more common. She’s just “not comfortable” with Obama and thinks he doesn’t know the pledge of allegiance or the Star Spangled Banner. She of course does not bother to think why Obama, of all the candidates, gives her that feeling, in the absence of any actual evidence to that effect.

Moving on to the town of Flag City Ohio, we find a guy who’s more forgivable because he’s at least considering that the stuff he hears in rumors isn’t true. Saying of the contrast between what the ads and newspaper articles say and what the word of mouth rumors say:

“It’s like you’re hearing about two different men with nothing in common,” Peterman said. “It makes it impossible to figure out what’s true, or what you can believe.”

Now, what you do when you don’t know is you look it up, but I will give him credit for not taking the rumors at face value and since he’s aware he may not have all the facts is considering not voting. His friend Leroy Pollard has no such qualms about showcasing his stupidity:

“I think Obama would be a disaster, and there’s a lot of reasons,” said Pollard, explaining the rumors he had heard about the candidate from friends he goes camping with. “I understand he’s from Africa, and that the first thing he’s going to do if he gets into office is bring his family over here, illegally. He’s got that racist [pastor] who practically raised him, and then there’s the Muslim thing. He’s just not presidential material, if you ask me.”

“That Muslim thing” eh? Mr. Pollard is a bigot and an idiot.

Now at about this point I’m guessing a certain proportion of readers are already highly uncomfortable. I’m calling an American voter an idiot and a bigot to boot! It’s just so…direct, isn’t it?

 

And therein lies the real source of my anger. Everyone agrees bigotry and ignorance is bad. (Almost) everyone agrees that a certain amount of opposition to Obama is due to prejudice and ignorance. Most people are additionally perfectly willing to denounce and insult those who would use such prejudice to their advantage. But then they balk at the people who hold those prejudices in their hearts. The persistence of racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia is treated as a sad tragedy, and the people who showcase it are treated with a kind of pity, as if they were good people who are merely sadly misguided.

I’ve had it with this. What about personal responsibility? What’s this being non-judgemental about opinions, as if an opinion were sacred just because you had it? No, people who proudly showcase their bigotry do not deserve our understanding. They deserve to be denounced and laughed at. Racism can’t just be denounced in the abstract, but also at the personal level.

I have to lay part of the blame for this with liberals (even if I’m the resident progressive here). They have inadvertently caused some of this mess by making the word “racist” so charged, so vile, that it’s been rendered practically useless. It’s such a grave insult that now you practically have walk around in a white hood yelling “Obama is a N$%&&R” for there to be general agreement that you are a racist. Crying wolf on racism hasn’t helped one bit either, to the point where many (me amongst them) instantly resist the idea when it is raised.

But eventually it gets to the point where it can’t be ignored. For me it’s been a cumulative irritation every time the issue comes up. Whenever the point is made that there IS prejudice and it DOES have an effect on the election of Obama, you will almost invariably get to hear from people who don’t support Obama on policy issues and feel insulted. The racism issue is so charged that you apparently can’t have a discussion about racism/xenophobia/Islamophobia as it relates to the campaign without OVERTLY saying the blindingly obvious; not all opposition to Obama is based on prejudice.

But the fact that not all opposition to Obama is racist does not render it a non-issue, and it CERTAINLY does not mean that if you hold prejudiced views you should be treated with cuddly understanding and not the proper sneering scorn.

 

The Obligatory Disclaimers:

1. If you are opposed to Obama on policy issues, or because you think he’s inexperienced, or because you think he’s an “elitist” please do not complain to me that you are not a racist. I’m happy that you’re not, that does not change the fact that there are many people who DO hold prejudice. This post is about those people, not about you.

2. I’m aware that you can have a “gut feeling” mistrust of a person that has nothing to do with race. Not everyone who says “I’m just not comfortable about him” is a racist, xenophobe or Islamophobe. HOWEVER the fact that many people are NOT does not mean you automatically assume that none are or reject the conversation.

3. Shades of gray exist. Not all racism is KKK racism, people who are prejudiced may otherwise be lovely people (even personally nice to people they are prejudiced against). Each person must be treated as an individual, but discussion of phenomenons at the level of society do not stop because of this.

4. If you actually read this far, you totally rock.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  1. ZachJonesIsHome
    July 2nd, 2008 at 23:52
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Senator Obama’s Patriotism – What it means to this Navy Veteran.  I hope you consider the following article: Senator Obama’s Patriotism - a Veteran’s Perspective It is found at: http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/senator-obama%e2%80%99s-patriotism-a-veteran%e2%80%99s-perspective/  

  2. Michael Merritt
    July 3rd, 2008 at 05:18
    Reply | Quote | #2

    I have to lay part of the blame for this with liberals (even if I’m the resident progressive here). They have inadvertently caused some of this mess by making the word “racist” so charged, so vile, that it’s been rendered practically useless. It’s such a grave insult that now you practically have walk around in a white hood yelling “Obama is a N$%&&R” for there to be general agreement that you are a racist. Crying wolf on racism hasn’t helped one bit either, to the point where many (me amongst them) instantly resist the idea when it is raised.

    Actually, I find that people tend to use it too often.  Not so much that they actual are calling the person a racist, but because they don’t understand its actual definition.  They usually mean "prejudice" when they say it.

  3. Selin
    July 3rd, 2008 at 12:25
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Good job of rising up to the occasion against bigotry or xenophobia or Muslim haters or what not. How about rising to the occasion when Obama himself has treated being Muslim as an INSULT?

    Obama has vehemently avoided rumors of having had any association with Islam OR having been indoctrinated with some Islamic teachings, both of which are indeed dubious because he was introduced to some Islamic teachings as a young boy in Indonesia due to his step father.

    He should have owned up to his history because it’s a factual detail, as opposed to viewing any association to Islam as a "smear" and vehemently denying having had any.

    However as an adult he has chosen Christianity and I’m not arguing that he is secretly a Muslim. But by choosing to view this association as an insult, he is perpetuating Islamophobia AND giving his "accusers" more ammunition that they can shoot him with. A truly great leader should have "risen to the occasion" to show American people that this type of defamatory rhetoric is purely wrong. Instead, he went the route of denying any connection to the "defamed" group.

    Great to know that he is on track to unifying everyone as a true leader.

    Of course we all know how he has used his "faith" in order to market his candidacy to important Christian and evangelical groups. He has manipulated his connection to Reverend Wright to prove how "Christian" he was before ultimately throwing him under the bus. He has visited many churches and synagogues and talked endlessly about importance of faith, but avoided mosques and even Muslim supporters.

    While you certainly do NOT condone bigotry as well as racism as long as it is aimed at Obama, it’s fascinating to see how you give Obama a pass on the many hypocritical and prejudiced behaviors he has manifested during the elections.

  4. Selin; I agree with that but I wrote about that at this website back then.

  5. Selin
    July 3rd, 2008 at 14:45
    Reply | Quote | #5

    Michael I’m sorry I was reacting to this article only. I generally try to follow this site and know where editors stand on a lot of issues more or less, but I have missed your article covering Obama from that perspective.

    But this Obama and Muslim stuff in general just pisses me off so much that I feel like I should jump in the moment I see something.

  6. wj
    July 3rd, 2008 at 15:58
    Reply | Quote | #6

    I would bet that there were just about as many people who were bigotted on the subject of a Jew running as there are about a (reputed) Muslim running.  The difference was that the media didn’t spend so much time running around the country getting quotes from people who were "uncomfortable" about Liebermann. 

    It may be just the difference between running for President vs. for Vice President.  Then again, maybe the press has its own standard of what kinds of prejudice it is OK to support by reporting, and what kinds it is best to let die in the dark.

  7. Tully
    July 3rd, 2008 at 17:29
    Reply | Quote | #7

    You should hear some of the things I’ve heard from assorted people who would not vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon.

    I’ve already had my fill up close and personal with Obamites openly telling people that if you don’t vote for him you’re a racist. No, that doesn’t make it official campaign rhetoric, but it is most certainly happening. The campaign itself used some fairly up-front dumb-redneck rhetoric to make that implication in the primaries in excusing the poor performance against Clinton in some regions, and the media hasn’t been shy about doing it either.

    I know that’s not the same as noticing the actual wilfully ignorant bigots and active racists out there, but let’s not pretend that fire’s being stoked from only one direction.

  8. Selin; read these two posts:.

  9. Chris
    July 3rd, 2008 at 19:28
    Reply | Quote | #9

    Claudia;
    I agree that everyone, left or right should clearly and vigorous repudiate racism. I had an email forwarded to me some time ago that was at best, subtly rascist. I clearly and vehemently responded back to the individual who forwarded it to me that it was disgusting. Fortunately, he agreed and was “curious” about my opinion.

    As I told my wife yesterday, shouldn’t it suffice to say that I disagree with his politics and feel we need someone with more experience under his belt. Do we have to impugn his character or worse openly lie about him.

    I do have to remind myself that this happens with every election. And I’d have to say that every election will hit us at our “prejudices”. Some see the Senator from Illinois as dark-skinned, with an odd name and attending a church that condems America from the pulpit. All of that hits on underlying “pre-judgements”. Some see the Senator from Arizona as an old warrior, married to a rich younger women courting the support of right-wing preachers. That too hits on previous “pre-judgements”. And as distasteful as it is I’m sure campaign strategists know that appealling to those prejudices can not only get votes but “energized” front-line campaign workers.

  10. Chris
    July 3rd, 2008 at 21:59

    BTW,
    The cartoon and header on this post are sending a mixed message. The cartoon is clearly racist (please note, I can’t view the video from this computer) so in this case (of the cartoon) using the name “rascist” WOULD NOT be equivalent to calling someone a N##ger

  11. Claudia, Assistant Editor
    July 4th, 2008 at 00:37

    The cartoon and header on this post are sending a mixed message. The cartoon is clearly racist (please note, I can’t view the video from this computer) so in this case (of the cartoon) using the name “rascist” WOULD NOT be equivalent to calling someone a N##ger

    My point with the header actually is described in one of the later paragraphs. The point is that "racist" has become such a foul word that it’s akin to n#$%6r, a word you don’t dare use on someone, or at the very least a word that if you DO use, you will get almost instant resistance, often even in pretty clear cut cases. The point (almost impossible to make in a 4 word title) is that we’ve made racist so foul that people dispute it’s use, or wish to change the subject (not everyone is racist! everyone gets smeared in some way!) even when faced with clear-cut cases, like the A$%hole that did that T-shirt.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.


Warning: is_writable() [function.is-writable]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(error_log) is not within the allowed path(s): (/home/p6525pol:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php:/tmp) in /home/p6525pol/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 500