After reading Nezua Limón Xolagrafik-Jonez’s analysis, Speech Rules or Beliefs and Attitudes?, of Glen Greenwald’s post, Awkward discussions of race and Obama and reading the post in question myself, I have to agree with Nez.

Mr. Greenwald writes that (”part of the reason”) people avoid discussing race is that it is “too easy to unwittingly run afoul of various unwritten speech rules” which, when violated “trigger accusations of bigotry.”

This reminds me of those clever car commercials where one falling weight tips a scale, which rolls a bearing toward a lever…. First, I hope we understand right away that “accusations” is a loaded term. Mister Greenwald utilizes his vocabulary with obvious efficacy and purpose. Knowing this, I feel I would be remiss not to assume that he intends that tone. It underlines the notion that the locus of blame is not on the speaker, when so many hidden rules abound, and can hardly be accounted for by a reasonable person.
…
Mr. Greenwald’s message has many valuable insights, but is ultimately a contradictory one. On one hand, he understands that there are attitudes inside these foot-in-mouthers that need to be addressed. On the other, he blames the overabundance of Politically Correct pressure ala “unwritten Speech Rules” for the mess.

And that is the crux of the problem, it’s the “Political Correctness” backlash or better known as the ole angry, white male backlash, which is the main barrier to reconciliation in America.

A common mistake among many white liberals is that they honestly believe if you merely announce to the world that you believe in the equality of all people, that would be the end it. This is NOT to say just because they do not “get it” that they should be compared to white supremacists that practice the overt forms of racism. I sincerely believe most white folks despise racism; however, many of them still do not “get it.”

Mr.Greenwald own life serves as an example of this. According to his blog he states that he was a “litigator in New York specializing in civil rights cases.” It might be safe to assume that his own upbringing positioned him to be, at least on a conscious level, as free of racism as he could be. Despite all this, that does not mean he is able to “get it” and his post, like a majority of white liberal/progressive bloggers, show it.

In today’s society, race is still a pervasive and troubling fault line running through American life. Greenwald, like most white liberal bloggers, do think the reason we are divided is that we keep the focus on “Speech Rules” and because of this, we fail to “get along.” Greenwald’s post is very reminiscent of the Code of Hammurabi in that it should be an eye for an eye when it comes to identifying racists remarks.

Look at how racially charged the “controversies” over Obama have already been — not only the fictitious claims about his “madrassa” education, but also Tucker Carlson’s insinuations over the past few days that Obama’s church is too black to be Christian. And ABC News’ Jake Tapper and Katie Hinman took Carlson’s innuendo a step further yesterday by claiming that unnamed “critics” want to know if Obama’s church “is too militant to be accepted by mainstream America” (h/t rk).

This is the typical “Look, there’s your real racist!” Argument many bloggers - so-called liberal and conservative combined - make when someone from either group when trying to get one of their own “off the hook.” And therein lies the problem of “an eye for an eye.” This practice is a dangerous and frightening proposal because it undermines the serious, historical and ongoing structural forms of racism to individuals. It is this kind of neoliberal color-blind strategy that Greenwald ascribes to.

The concept of a color-blind society was inspired by the types Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. when he advocated judging people not by the color of their skin, but by their internal character. But it was misguided and devious advocates who co-opted it, taken it out of context and failed to grasp a basic assumption made by King. The aim of a color-blind America is an old and valued idea. When segregation was legal and racial classification determined where one sat or drank, worked, lived, or went to school, color-blindness meant ending the color-coded laws of southern apartheid. Color-blindness was the reverse of Jim Crow. Those were different times; color-blindness has now come to mean that “whiteness” is the default key to mimic the norms of fairness, justice and equity by “whiting” out differences and perpetuating the belief in sameness. The denial of power imbalance, unearned privilege and racist domination are couched in the rhetoric of equal treatment and equal opportunity.

The concept of a color-blind provides the illusion that society is no longer racist, except for the few individuals here and there. What Greenwald doesn’t realize is that he is suggesting that subtle racism should be more palatable, more digestible for those being subjugated to it and that we ought to focus more on blatant racism because it is easier to deal with.

…scouring people’s comments about Obama and race, in search of evidence of even minor deviations from speech mores, is not really constructive.

Greenwald is NOT suggesting that individual acts of racism are inane because he does recognize that “patronizing sentiments” are freely being publicly expressed. However, one does have to wonder what he intended by saying “probably.”

It can be unpleasant to watch people struggle with these awkward discussions, but, on balance, anything which forces these issues more out into the open is probably a positive development.

What is he suggesting? Then again, it is not surprising to see this type of vagueness in carefully worded cryptic messages.

The problem with this line of view, it provides an illusion that they are not responsible for the state of race relations because they do not deliberately engage in racist behaviors. This is so evident when Greenwald attacked Sylvia for calling him, in his mind, a racist for invoking the “I have a Black friend” argument.

Sylvia has no basis whatsoever for that speculation. And she does not even offer it as speculation, instead saying that it’s “clear” that that was my motive. And that, of course, is the most ignoble explanation for my behavior — simultaneously attributing to me both cowardice (I was afraid to make these points and so had to hide behind Pam) and a form of racism (I was willing to link to Pam because she’s black).

This is exactly the sort of ugliness that makes people not want to address these issues. Why would you pick from a whole menu of motives that might account for someone’s behavior and pick the ugliest one without having a shred of proof that you’re right? As it turns out, (a), (b) and (c) above are all accurate — that is why I linked to Pam’s post. And I never said I agreed with all or even any of the points Pam made. I just said she had a nuanced and insightful discussion of those issues.

When race is brought up as a point of discussion, it expresses so many mixed feelings and consciousness is not an aspect of our general personality that we choose to exhibit when it comes to racial issues and Greenwald’s response was a perfect example.

What Greenwald is unaware is that statements like his, “this is exactly the sort of ugliness that makes people not want to address these issues,” are also being expressed throughout communities of color. That is why it is often said that it is easier to deal with an in-your-face racist than the other kind who fervently denies making bigoted or prejudiced remarks. At least with the former, we know where they are coming from, with the other, we never know when they will strike.

Sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva explains that color-blind racism is a carefully coded discourse that functions in the guise of “now you see it, now you don’t”, which allows people to minimize their racist tirade and later cop-out by mentioning their token [insert minority group] friend. However, left out from public discourse and decision-making is the social relationships and economic conditions that make individual acts of discrimination possible in the beginning.

The key to understanding color-blind discourse and ideology is the centuries old fact of structured racism. In his book, Between Fear and Hope: Globalization and Race in the United States, Andrew Barlow defines structured racism as, “societywide patterns of privilege and subordination” based on race. It is noticed in the inconsistencies of social things small and large, ranging from having to spend more on inflated gas prices to being abandoned en masse in the Hurricane Katrina human-made disaster, to attending schools in predominantly middle-class and white suburban school systems instead of those attended by predominantly African American and Latino students in poor inner cities. In other words, to talk about politics is to talk about race.

Racism challenges us in many different venues, it takes many different forms, and the fact is it is our collective problem. Like a virus, racism (both subtle and overt) has infected almost anything and everything we know. The discord against “political correctness” should be regarded for what it is: the expression of a backlash, itself political, against all progressive causes and we need to eliminate the terror of structured racism that manifests itself through “political correctness” with as much force and conviction that it took to end the overt forms of racism. When the status quo lashes back, we who are committed to social change know we’re getting somewhere and that is what “positive development” is all about.

Technorati Tags: Glen Greenwald, Political Correctness, racism, Speech Rules, color-blind society, color-blindness, racial issues, prejudice, social relationships, African American, Latino

Related posts

• No related posts.

|  Print This Post |
functional