Tuesday, November 27, 2012

You're a Racist?

Recently I engaged in a discussion of politics which rather quickly morphed into a conversation about racism. (By “conversation” I mean accusation.)  

In our politically correct and confused culture, it seems any conservative thought is now deemed to be racially motivated or racist—provided of course that the thinker in question is White. 

Below is an excerpted presentation of the debate. My opponent begins by offering four “proofs” of racism in Obama’s detractors.
(For the record, none of his “proofs” are related to the topic of the discussion I had been enjoying. Rather, he introduces these “proofs.” And in the interest of full disclosure, my interlocutor is a Black gentleman. Not that it should matter. But, apparently, it does.) 

For the sake of clarity, his remarks appear bold and italicized. Also, I left his words and syntax, for the most part, unedited. 

Are you a racist, dear reader? Sez who? 


“Evidence of racism [against Obama]:
1. The questioning of his birth
2. The question of his religion
3. The assumption of him being Muslim
 There's 3 I could name more
4. Assuming that people like Colin Powel and others only vote for him because he's black.” 

1. What does one’s place of birth have to do with skin color? (I know lots of people of color who were born in America. Also, I have several Facebook friends who are White and were not born in America.) FAIL. 

2. I know lots of people of color who are non-Muslim. (Religion has NOTHING to do with pigmentation.) FAIL. 

3. (See number 2) FAIL (twice). 

4. 93% of Blacks and 71% of Hispanics voted for Obama. (One does not need to be a racist to see the role of race in politics.) FAIL. 

"If you can honestly say none of the detraction is race based . . ."  

Who here is saying NONE of the detraction is based upon race? I'm sure there are folks who don't like him because he's Black. For that matter, I'm sure there are folks who do like him because he's Black (in other words...they know next to nothing about his policies...but they "like" him and probably voted for him). 

That being said, the “evidences” you offer have no logical or necessary connection to race. The fact is, many "see" racism and throw around the term "racist" in effort to marginalize and stifle debate. It's an underhanded tactic to silence all opposition. 

“If you are saying those issues have no basis in race then I have to believe that you would not be able to recognize passive racism.” 

Ah...now its "passive racism." I see...it's the kind of racism most folks are unaware of...it's just so "subtle." 

Here's the thing: Guys like you—who fling the words "racist" and "racism" with such ease—have watered down the terms. There's no sting to them; no bite any more. 

It used to be, if one were called a "racist," one would be aghast and mortified; one would become defensive and fall all over oneself—but now, not so much.  

Nowadays if one is called a "racist" it is met with barely a yawn. I don't like Obama and I think his policies are atrocious...so I'm a racist? Yeah...whatever.  

It's sad really. 

As I alluded to earlier, the terms "racism" and "racist" have been so misused and overused in the last few years, that the terms have lost their significance; perhaps even their meaning. 

Presently, anyone who is opposed to the Left's agenda is labeled a "racist" or a "bigot" or a "homophobe." This is most unfortunate. It does not serve us well. 

“Think about all the rhetoric after the election about ‘traditional America’ being gone And this ain't our parent America and all the stuff. Basically the complaint is that white men don't get to decided what's going on in the country anymore." 

Here's more evidence that folks like you, who like to throw around terms such as "racism" and "racist," are rendering said terms meaningless through overuse, misuse, and abuse. 

(The above link is to a story concerning Susan Rice. A congressman is claiming that those who question Rice, in regards to her statements pertaining to Benghazi, are racially motivated.) 

“[This story is] evidence that people like Steve can't recognize subtle racism unless there's a cross burning a yard yall can say what you want but I will say I believe what I believe you can disagree.” 

To ask why Ambassador Rice misled the American public is racist? 

I'm going to use your "logic" on you now. Here goes! 

I think your position is racist. I believe you dislike White people and think ill of us. I think you suffer from "passive racism." Why do you allege that our opposition to Obama's agenda is centered in racial hatred? For only one reason: You say this because we are White. 

You have no reason, other than our lack of pigmentation, to say the things you say against us. You question our motives—without logical reason or evidence—simply because we are White. You wouldn't accuse us of such things if we weren't White. 

You're not recognizing your own “subtle racism.” That is, you're a racist—you just don't know it. If we were born persons of color in the global South or were Muslim, you wouldn't question our motives or integrity. But, since we are of White European descent, you are suspicious of us. 

Why do you dislike us so much? Why is your opinion of us so low? Why do you think we hate people just because we lack pigmentation? It doesn't seem fair to be judged so harshly—simply for being White. 

To impugn folks for being White...is racist. 


The entire conversation may be seen here:


  1. I'd also note that there are African Americans who have questioned Obama's place of birth. The fact of the matter is that people's impressions that Obama is "foreign" have nothing to do with his nationality (no-one has managed to produce any credible evidence that he was born in Kenya, while he has produced various pieces of evidence that he was born in Hawaii), but his background. His father was Kenyan, black African, not African-American, and so he does not share the "black experience". From the age of 2 to the age of 10, he was raised in Indonesia. These things lead to people thinking he is 'foreign'. They do not however make him legally foreign.

    Western politics today is largely personal, not a matter of policies, and so political talk has become personal talk. It is largely a matter of popularity, of "I like so-and-so", not, "I think he policies will help make this country strong." As a consequence of this, all political criticism in some quarters is seen as personal criticism. Such woolly thinking is found on right and left, among Fundamentalist Christians and postmodernist atheists, and is all a capitulation to a poorly-understood Postmodernism.

    For you see, one does not by denying the possibility of intellectual error make things better, but a lot worse, for if all opinions are equally valid, then the only kind of error that is left is moral error, and so the person who disagrees with you must be evil, for otherwise he would agree with you. And this works its way down to the least jot or tittle of opinion in such movements as King James Onlyism.

    1. You make excellent points.

      Thank you for reading and for sharing your thoughts.