As Wise points out, the topic of this CNN segment is actually the topic of his post -- the differential treatment of differently raced protesters -- but that topic just doesn't interest Martin. As usual for white folks, other things seem more important than racism, which I guess is just, you know, a kind of side issue, something for the minorities to whine about in their limited way, something that actually died a long time ago, and if it didn't die then, it certainly died on that fateful, hopey-changey day that Barack Obama became president (and so on, etcetera, ad nauseam). And just because I as a white person am almost completely surrounded by other white people, and just because practically no white people, including the white-framed corporate media (with the kudo-worthy exception of Don Lemon), find that a racial problem, when it would find similar crowds of non-white people a racial problem, well, that's nothing alarming, or even worth pointing out, really. Unless you've got some kind of old-fashioned ax to grind. Or race-card to play. Or pet cause to promote, because you're really trying to hypocritically advance your own self-interest.
Ad nauseam. I sometimes get nauseous from trying to get obstinate white people to see racism. Do you?
[transcript below]
Transcript:
TIM WISE, AUTHOR, "COLOR BLIND" (via telephone): Well, the premise is very simple. We, as a country, tend to view white political anger very differently than anger or even just, you know, activism when it's evidenced or evinced by people of color. I just wanted people to think about, for example, you know, what would the public perception be? What would the discussion be on FOX News, for example, if thousands of mostly black protesters who were angry about some particular bill that was being considered by the Congress went to Washington, surrounded lawmakers on their way to work and yelled at them? Forget the whole spitting or the racial slur piece of it, just the yelling at them to do what they wanted? How would that be perceived? The fact is we know the civil rights movement knew they couldn't act like that. A, they had too much class. B, they realized that if they had done that, they would have been viewed as an insurrectionary mob. Likewise, the comments made by, you know, traditional mainstream conservative talk show hosts are the kinds of things that no black or brown commentator could get away with.
LEMON: I want to let Jenny Beth get in here. Does what Tim says make any sense to you? Does the racial makeup of the movement make any difference in terms of your tea party message?
JENNY BETH MARTIN, CO-FOUNDER, TEA PARTY PATRIOTS: We're ordinary citizens standing and we're standing up for three things -- fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets. And these three principles, they transcend race and they apply to everyone. The out-of-control spending the government is doing right now, it's going to affect our children and our grandchildren. Regardless of race, it's going to affect all of them, and that's what we're concerned about.
LEMON: So you don't think that the racial makeup, you don't think Tim's argument has any credence? You don't buy into it?
MARTIN: I don't -- I don't think so. We don't have --- we don't tolerate racism within tea party patriots. We focus on those core values. And when people aren't listening, sometimes you have to raise your voice.
LEMON: Yeah.
MARTIN: There's anger out there right now, and anger is OK as long as it's channeled in the appropriate manner.
WISE: You know what, Don? Don, there is a lot of anger on the part of Arab-Americans who are being profiled all the time since 9/11. But you and I both know, and I think Jenny would agree, that if Arab- Americans were to voice their displeasure at racial profiling, and frankly the way in which neither party, Democrat or Republican, have taken it very seriously, and were to go and yell at lawmakers to pass some type of anti-profiling bill, that they would be seen as terrorists. They would be seen as insurrectionary. I mean, that's the difference. And so, Jenny, you know, is talking about her movement not being racist, that's not the topic this evening. The topic is do we perceive mostly white folks' anger over whatever topic, whatever the issue is differently than we would if it was people of color? I think the answer to that question is obvious.
LEMON: Tim, you have a new book coming out, Color Blind, and I think it's very interesting. It's a very provocative point in your book that President Obama, and maybe some Democrats, might be doing the country a disservice when it comes to matters of race. What do you mean by that?
WISE: Well, the argument in the book is a little bit deeper than that. What I talk about in the book is that unless we are willing to call out the problem of racism in housing, in education, in health care, actual acts of discrimination, which I document fully in the book, what ends up happening is that, number one, by not calling it out, we reinforce the denial that is so prevalent, particularly among white America, that the problem is real. The second thing we do is in the case of the president, if he's not willing to call out some of the blatant racism, which I think is behind, for example, the Arizona SB 1070 or the blatant racism which occasionally manifests in some of that tea party opposition, the more radical edge of it, he's not willing to call it out. I think it actually undermines his credibility. When things are that obvious and you're not willing to -- some credibility in the public and that's one of the points I wanted to make.
LEMON: John is sitting here. I don't think John agrees with you.
RIDLEY: I don't quite agree. I do think when there's racism, you've got to call it out. And you see what's going on in Arizona. I don't think anyone has a problem saying that there are elements of this law that are clearly racist. But I do think one of the big problems that we're facing moving ahead in the 21st century, it's more socioeconomic. If you are a person of color --
LEMON: Hang on. Hang on. I'm going to let you finish your point. I'm going to let you finish your point. But even the Congressional Black Caucus and some very prominent leaders, Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, a number of people are saying the president is not focusing on issues that are important to African-Americans. Some are saying the president is not focusing on issues, including immigration is not strong enough on issues,
WISE: Don, it's not just -- it's not just that.
LEMON: Or for brown people. Go ahead, Tim, real quick.
WISE: Don, it's not just that, I mean, the claim that it is mostly socioeconomic. Let's take health care.
I document in the book specifically how the racial disparities in health care between whites and people of color are not mostly about economics. It is not mostly about do you have coverage or do you not. The studies are very clear that the reason people of color, especially black folks, have worst health outcomes are two things. Number one, the cumulative effect of racial bias over time and secondly, the actual dispensation of unequal care by doctors.
RIDLEY: Tim, I would just jump in very quick.
LEMON: John, go ahead.
RIDLEY: Sometimes when we start to segregate some of these issues and say they are merely black issues or white issues, you start to go away from the fact that they are our issues. Again, for people of color who are not economically challenged or doing well, those issues are very different from anyone who is economically challenged and facing those same issues. So I think as we move ahead, yes, we should call it racism when it's there. Again, in Arizona, we see folks doing that, but I think that we do get into a rut as people when they start saying, this is merely a black issue, this is merely a white issue, and not -- and President Obama is president of the United States.
LEMON: And he does have to walk a tightrope when it comes to this.
RIDLEY: I think he does have to walk a tightrope, but he is our president.
LEMON: Yes, yes.
[full transcript here]
Wow. It's fun to see derailing on the actual news. Well, fun in a really, really frustrating way. Especially the, "It's not racism, it's classism" thing. And I'm glad Tim Wise pointed out that his point wasn't whether the Tea Party is racist or not but whether the fact that the Tea Party is all white has an impact on their ability to protest as violently and loudly as they do. Which I think is a valid point and I think the other two people completely dodged that point because they didn't want to get into it. Because they would have to admit that yes, if the Tea Party was anything but white the government and police and whoever else would have taken action to keep those "terrorists" from becoming too violent.
ReplyDeleteIt does make me sad when the news moderator, as it were, can't seem to keep the other people on the point that is being addressed. And when the other "experts" would rather plow through their talking points then have a real discussion. A big reason why I don't watch mainstream news.
It's just like the Nobama group on Facebook. These idiots claim they're against Obama for his politics, but just look at the group and there's a lot of disgusting, racist stuff there.
ReplyDeleteKeep on playing the "classism, not racism" card, you fucking Tea Bagger morons.
The issues of healthcare for POCs and the health effects of systematic racism (which are things Tim Wise brings up at the end) are topics I've been talking a lot about recently. I've brought this issues up with my white friends a number of times and it's really like pushing a derailing button (like the easy button but so much suckier). You almost can't breathe for the people demanding negative controls in the experiments and talking about their poor white relatives in rural wherever. There's just so much resistance. You ALWAYS have to say that there were controls for class. Yes, affluent people of color experience racism, yes. Why would you think differently even for a moment?
ReplyDeleteWay to shamelessly avoid Tim's question. is it so hard to just say "yeah only a group of mostly white people could get away with this type of angry protest" I guess that would be an acknowledgement of systematic racism which is against our programming. " they were just set up and ready to deflect claims that the tea party is racist even though that wasn't what Tim was saying. The exchange doesn't even qualify as discussion or debate, just flat refusal to engage masquerading as conversation.
ReplyDeletePMS Rhino, Sara, I agree. It's become so common for whites to derail the issue of racism, that it's becoming increasingly predictable and twice as irritating.
ReplyDeleteWhen one sees the racism hidden or exposed in the Tea Party but still object that is racist, one is in severe denial of the problem which they don't consider a problem to begin with. To me it nothing short of programming that most whites have when it comes to racism. I personally call it a severe mental illness.
Wise had excellent points and the other two gentleman obviously avoided the question and dismissed what he had to say. It's disgraceful, but I'm going to buy Color Blind. It looks really good!
ReplyDeleteI think it's pretty straightforward why White people refuse to acknowledge racism: because they don't want to be seen as racist. The biggest problem is that in order for White people to have a productive discussion on racism and related issues, they need to be able to separate racism (the societal construct/institution) and racist (the adjective, as applied to a person). Beverly Tatum writes about this in Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria, where she notes that for the white people she interviewed, being called "racist" was the ultimate insult and felt like a punch to the stomach.
ReplyDeleteFor many white people who haven't yet achieved a positive White racial identity, if they acknowledge that racism still exists, it's the same as if they were to go put on white robes and go to a cross-burning. So until we do a better job of educating White people that they can acknowledge racism without being David Duke, this is going to be a problem.
The ironic thing is that saying "it's not racism, it's classism" only makes people feel better because they also don't understand the role privilege plays in their lives. Privilege is what's at the heart of most of the "-isms", be it racism, classism or whatever.
Racism doesn’t affect whites- so how can they empathize with an experience that’s relatively foreign to them. But politics, ah- well that’s another story. Politics is given more credence for as the woman inferred, these core issues supposedly apply to everyone. An even more pressing concern for whites is, “who is going to control my destiny?" Now that a black man holds the highest office in the land whites lament-, how is he spending my hard-earned money? What steps has this black president taken that might further erode my constitutional rights. The bailout has taken my home- my lively-hood and (and what I fear most) our preeminence. Me me me!
ReplyDeleteWhen blacks cry racism we are characterized as deprecatory miscreants, "who don’t know how good they got it," some say. However, when tea partiers air their grievances, they’re portrayed as conscientious zealots, defending their civil liberties. The context of the narrative tends to change whenever the color of the pigment is modified.
@WISE: "The second thing we do is in the case of the president, if he's not willing to call out some of the blatant racism, which I think is behind, for example, the Arizona SB 1070 or the blatant racism which occasionally manifests in some of that tea party opposition, the more radical edge of it, he's not willing to call it out. I think it actually undermines his credibility. When things are that obvious and you're not willing to -- some credibility in the public and that's one of the points I wanted to make."
When Oprah chose Obama over Hillary Clinton, white pundits everywhere accused the queen of daytime talk shows of pandering to her race. She went from being one of the most powerful and influential people in this country, to typical Negress (in white eyes) overnight. Her white female proselytes were taken aback, for up until that time Oprah devoted much of her enterprise to them. When Colin Powell opted to endorse Obama for president, the ex-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was also accused of pandering to his race.
Consequently, if Obama were to take a position minutely favorable to the concerns of minorities, his critics would amass from both the left and the right. Whites on both sides of the political spectrum would say, "see how the chameleon shows his true colors?" he’s pandering to his race." This particular president is judged adversely, mainly because of the hue of his skin- and by the confident swagger in his walk.
@LEMON: And he does have to walk a tightrope when it comes to this.
The paradox seeks to undermine his presidency, forcing him to seek the middle ground in any given situation lest he pander to white fears. For it doesn’t really matter what side of the rope whites pull from, be they liberal or conservative- they’re still white. Both camps grapple to define this black president, either to advance their own self interests, or promote a racial agenda.
The existence of the "Tea Party" in the first place is an example of this. These people were nowhere when Bush was getting away with horrific violations of civil liberties, because he was a good ol' boy who was "making America safer," but the motives of a black president with a furrin-sounding name are automatically so suspect that a middle-of-the-road healthcare reform package is seen as a Stalinist power grab. They think they are putting down a black (and Muslim) insurrection.
ReplyDelete@M. Gibson: However, when tea partiers air their grievances, they’re portrayed as conscientious zealots, defending their civil liberties. The context of the narrative tends to change whenever the color of the pigment is modified.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm just biased living in Boston (not exactly a GOP-friendly town), but fortunately most of the portrayal of Tea Party folks that I see is that of illiterate morons with poorly-written signs.
I also find it interesting that despite all the discussions about racism in the current Tea Party group, people rarely bring up that the original Tea Party also had racist roots, in that many "disguised" themselves as Native Americans prior to boarding the ships. So they weren't exactly heroes. It also shows us how little has changed in over 200 years, which is kind of depressing.
I don't want to derail this into a political discussion, but it's frustrating that so many blatantly racist comments are given a "free pass" because they're billed as "political commentary". Free speech is a fine thing, and Limbaugh and Beck can rant all they want about the economy or health care, but when they start making comments like "using the earthquake to boost credibility among dark-skinned people" or blatantly deliberately mispronouncing foreign names, they have crossed the line from political discourse into hatemongering (I dislike that word, because it's over-used, but it applies here). And that should not be allowed.
I wish every single one of the Tea Party folks who insist that they're not racist would call out Limbaugh and Beck and the others, and say "Hey, if you want to convince us that Obama's policies are bad for America, then do that, but we're not racist, and we want you to stick to actual issues and facts". But that'll never happen, because frankly, I think many of them take a kind of guilty pleasure in hearing racial epithets, because it's taboo.
@Jon R:
ReplyDelete“I wish every single one of the Tea Party folks who insist that they're not racist would call out Limbaugh and Beck and the others, and say "Hey, if you want to convince us that Obama's policies are bad for America, then do that, but we're not racist, and we want you to stick to actual issues and facts". But that'll never happen, because frankly, I think many of them take a kind of guilty pleasure in hearing racial epithets, because it's taboo.”
But wouldn’t that amount to the pot calling the kettle black? Its amazes me to no end the extent of behavior/rhetoric whites can get away with before a any white will call him or her a racist. A white person can hang a noose from a window, yet the act itself isn’t interpreted as racist- the perpetrator is just an asshole. Alternatively, they’re portrayed as someone who’s become frustrated by a string of events and simply acted out in anger- but it surely wasn’t racist.
Whites who paint signs depicting Obama with a bone through his nose- or forward emails of watermelons on the Whitehouse lawn are pegged as simply stupid acts by whites, not racist.
Whites find it very hard to take a stand and say, we (whites) need to own up to it; we (whites) must call others out on it, and we (whites) must deal with this cancer openly. The Boston Tea Party only confirms one thing for me. Whites love to control others, but whites despise being controlled by anyone. When whites feel as though their rights have been violated every action (however disagreeable) is deemed permissible and everyone is fair game. They feel a personal need to take action- and to make others aware.
They will protest- they will rise up in numbers, taking extreme measures if necessary; then espouse their unlawful exploits as a means to an end.
"To these people in Oklahoma who have lost a loved one, I'm sorry but it happens every day. You're not the first mother to lose a kid, or the first grandparent to lose a grandson or a granddaughter. It happens every day, somewhere in the world. I'm not going to go into that courtroom, curl into a fetal ball and cry just because the victims want me to do that." Timothy McVeigh.
@J - I think you're absolutely right - it's the difference between active personal racism and more passive contextual white privilege racism (which I still think needs a much better name in order to get most folks to recognize it). And of course pretty much any white person (including me) will take being called racist as a personal insult and immediately go into defensive mode.
ReplyDeleteThe average tea partier can think "Well, I'VE never used the n-word, and my friends don't, so we're not racist." Plus, it's a very loosely organized group, so the libertarians can always say that the immigration rights guys are the racists, or the strict constitutionalists can say that it's the Birthers.
That said, I don't think I've seen any positive coverage of the Tea Partiers, but that may be the media I read (want some EuroEnvy? Fox News doesn't even exist here).
I wonder what a _Manufacturing Consent_ style analysis would show about coverage of the Tea Party armed meetings with, say, the Black Panthers taking weapons into the California State House back in the 60s. Somehow, I don't think the coverage would be equivalent.
"Maybe I'm just biased living in Boston (not exactly a GOP-friendly town), but fortunately most of the portrayal of Tea Party folks that I see is that of illiterate morons with poorly-written signs." - Jon R
ReplyDelete"I don't think I've seen any positive coverage of the Tea Partiers, but that may be the media I read." - dersk
I agree that I haven't seen a lot of positive publicity about the Tea Party movement, based mostly on the media I consume (not FOX). But I think the point (and I'm not sure I'm actually disagreeing with either of you here) is not whether the Tea Party gets positive or negative publicity. It's about the CONTENT of the media attention.
When the Tea Party gets negative publicity, as you point out, Jon R, they seem to be portrayed as stupid, disorganized, irrational, etc. They kind of become a joke. Which is really different from the portrayal as a dangerous threat and/or as terrorists, which is how a similarly large and angry group of POCs would be portrayed by the media.
A former classmate of mine (black), responded to this article by Wise in the same exact way that the woman in this clip did. It's really astounding. Is the concept of some perception being reality for some REALLY that hard to understand?
ReplyDeleteI would've argued, but every time I try to with this guy he's exceedingly passive aggressive with the "oh, lol, let's agree to disagree, ok?"
Maybe I'm just old and tired, but I've arrived at the point where I don't try to break down racism for racists. I call it out, but I don't go for their fight-bait.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the TP goes, they're so high on their own BS, it's a miracle they haven't overdosed. Seriously: their hate is a drug, and you cannot reason or work with a drug. Put them in cold turkey rehab and there might be a chance of some progress.
Maybe I'm just old and tired, but I've arrived at the point where I don't try to break down racism for racists. I call it out, but I don't go for their fight-bait.
ReplyDeleteI made the same choice myself. I pretty much expend energy only on people who want to Get It.
@ Paul
ReplyDeleteI don't think you're old and tired. Then again, I don't know how old you are :) I'm 29 and I feel the EXACT same way. I'm just done trying to explain racism to racists. The TP are nothing more but Klansmen looking to restore America to the good ole days of pre-Civil War. Within 30 or 40 years, whites are suppose to be the miniority and I guess these folks are working like hell now to stop this possibility from being a reality. After all, racism and discrimination and all the bs POCs put up with on a daily basis is only reserve for POCs and not whites. They are so damn paranoid. I saw one jerk with a sign that read 'White Slavery.' It's beyond words at their fear of being a miniority and all of the crap POCs dealt with in the past and still endure in the PRESENT. Sighs. They can say whatever they want, but it's plain old hate and racism. Nothing more.
Barbara said...
ReplyDelete"Within 30 or 40 years, whites are suppose to be the minority and I guess these folks are working like hell now to stop this possibility from being a reality. After all, racism and discrimination and all the bs POCs put up with on a daily basis is only reserve for POCs and not whites. They are so damn paranoid. I saw one jerk with a sign that read 'White Slavery.' It's beyond words at their fear of being a minority and all of the crap POCs dealt with in the past and still endure in the PRESENT."”
But that’s it isn’t it…
Fear of being a minority is a deep-seated trepidation that whites will have to go through what we minorities have gone through for centuries. “Bottom rail will be on top this time,” to quote a former slave. Best to shore up our defenses now by raising those birth rates, and let us consolidate power in every state; purchase as many guns as we can- for power will not be given up willingly. There is a fear of being “otherized,” a fear of losing their preeminence in the world. The same apprehension Eric Cartman feels when he laments to there being too many minorities in “His” waterpark.
Some whites fear a time when “white” will cease to exemplify generic in this land, when the standards for beauty and normalcy will hereafter be defined by non-whites. Now that’s a bona fide fear of the unknown, an acknowledgment of white hegemony even as whites look us in the eye and say it doesn’t exist.
Monica over at TransGriot has an excellent post reminding us that we don't have to wonder what would happen if the TeaBaggers were Black. We just have to read about the Black Panther Party!
ReplyDeletehttp://transgriot.blogspot.com/2010/04/ask-panthers-what-would-happen-if.html