• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's worse: using the race card or dismissing legitimate racism?

What's worse: using the race card or dismissing legitimate racism?

  • Society should mention race other than the human race because its proably a use of the race card.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • If racism exists in 2013, expose it in order to correct it seeking to make society better.

    Votes: 16 80.0%
  • Sorry, I don't have a dog in that fight. No position either way.

    Votes: 4 20.0%

  • Total voters
    20
Why is it either-or?
Shouldn't we both reject cynical "race card" manipulations and resist racism whenever it rears its ugly head?

Sadly, I've never found it to be that easy. My experience is some condemn ANY and ALL mentions of race as using the race card or what I call "using the race card card."

For me when stupid false claims actually used its so ridiculous I typically ignore it or point out that its the false claims of racism that cause true problems to get thrown out with the real problems, save the more horrific things.
 
I think race baiting is extreme and destructive racism.
 
I am curious.

In the multiyear long fascination with Obama's birth certificate....does anyone see racism or using the race card with the discussion?
 
I am curious.

In the multiyear long fascination with Obama's birth certificate....does anyone see racism or using the race card with the discussion?

Because its unprecedented in American history that a national campaign was waged disputing the citizenship of a sitting POTUS that was so effective people believed it and coupled with the history of the Jim Crow grandfather clause where black voters were required to submit documentation that their grandfathers were voters shortly after slavery had ended, many blacks felt there was an unspoken racial component. I personally think for most birthers it was not a race issue but rather they honestly had been unduly influenced by aggressive and effective propaganda tactics employed by people whom they trusted.
 
Because its unprecedented in American history that a national campaign was waged disputing the citizenship of a sitting POTUS that was so effective people believed it and coupled with the history of the Jim Crow grandfather clause where black voters were required to submit documentation that their grandfathers were voters shortly after slavery had ended, many blacks felt there was an unspoken racial component. I personally think for most birthers it was not a race issue but rather they honestly had been unduly influenced by aggressive and effective propaganda tactics employed by people whom they trusted.

So do you think the people who influenced the birthers "the propagandists" were racist or just politically motivated assholes that will do anything do get their way?
 
Because its unprecedented in American history that a national campaign was waged disputing the citizenship of a sitting POTUS that was so effective people believed it and coupled with the history of the Jim Crow grandfather clause where black voters were required to submit documentation that their grandfathers were voters shortly after slavery had ended, many blacks felt there was an unspoken racial component. I personally think for most birthers it was not a race issue but rather they honestly had been unduly influenced by aggressive and effective propaganda tactics employed by people whom they trusted.

That's generally my take on it.

Were some people motivated by racism? Absolutely.

Were some people motivated by other reasons, and then went down that path because of racism? Absolutely.

But I think by and large, the base motivation of the birther movement that was most wide spread was political in nature...not racial. Every president tends to have the opposition latch onto SOME issue that they use to try and delegitimize and attack. While there were obviously some within that group who went bought in because of dislike of black people, I would wager most bought in because of a dislike for Democrats.

I think the argument for where race played a larger factor was the method, or the substance, used to launch the attacks. Or put another way...I think race played a bigger roll in using the "birth certificate" as the topic of attack than it did in the existance of an attack in the first place.

However, even then, I think a lot of factors went into it. For some, it was a racial component. For others it was more of a xenophobic notion of someone "not from here" and "foreign". For others it was a religious fears and issues that caused them to buy in. While it's true that Barack Obama's race is unique amongst Presidents, those who seek to see Racism everywhere often fail to notice other unique aspects of him that helped play into the crafting of the "birther" movement as a potential attack.

No President in recent memory spent near half a decade of their lives living outside of the country. No president in recent memory attended a school predominantly populated by follows of a religion other than Judaism or Christianity, nor included teachings about said religion. No president in recent memory had a parent who was a follower of a religion other than Judaism or Christianity. No President in recent memory had a name which was no where to be found on the list top 200 child names of that decade.

All of those things, along with race, helped to create a situation where such a narriative could be crafted and created to plant enough doubt in the minds of those with a basline motivation (political) to want to believe regardless of what their "trigger" point may be (race, xenophobia, religion, "otherness", etc). I would wager if the Democratic President was white and named Jacques François, had lived in France for nearly 5 years, and had the same mild religious ties in the background as Obama had that we would've seen something similar develop...albiet at a slightly lower verocity because the race factor wouldn't be another layer added on top of it.

Why do candidates often attempt to seem like a guy "you could have a beer with?" Why is it that all other things being equal between two candidates, some Christians would vote for the Christian over the Jew/Athiest/Muslim? Or the minority would voet for the Minority over the non minority candidate? Or the small business owner would vote for a guy who grew up working his way up as opposed to a guy born into a well off family? It's because people want a politician they feel can relate to the struggles and issues facing them, and seeing things that are "familiar" or similar to ones self often imparts that impression.

This is a bit long winded but I guess what I'm saying is in many ways I agree with you. I understand fully why many black voters FELT that it was largely rooted in racism. I think there are people within the population of birthers whose participation is influenced by the Presidents race to varying degrees, and I do think there are some out and out racist individuals within that population. But I think the most wide spread common root motivation for the birther notion is one that isn't based upon race, and I think there are a multitude of factors not directly tied to race that go into why that particular method of attack was what came to rise.
 
I agree with you in terms of a broader, univeresal type stance. The grey I speak with is with individual situations and based around our perception.

A man goes "I hate this president! He's not like me!".

It COULD be because he's Black. it could be because he's a Democrat. It could be because he thinks he's muslim. It could be because he holds different views on abortoin and gay marriage. It could be because he smokes for all we know.

Or hell, for a more relevant case...and god forgive me for bringing this up...but take the Trayvon Martin case. There should at LEAST have been enough conflicting views and opinions across the board to suggest that, at the very least, it would be inaccurate to claim with 100% factual certainty whether or not he acted the way he did specifically because of Race. Yet there are people on both sides who will declare, with absolute certainty, one way or the other...when in reality it's not fully possible for any of us to truly know for sure what role it played and HOW it played that role.

That's why I say that often some of the things that are declared racism are subjective in nature; I mean that from a human sense, that given the information we have, and not utilizing assumptions and guesses, there is no objective truth in many of these situations. There's enough evidence that a case could be made either way in a reasonable or rational way.

That's my point though.

There's no reason to believe disliking Pres. Obama or George Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon Martin is about race anymore than preference in bubble gum. It's just a cheap political tool used by the left. That's what racism in the United States is today. Images like this:

Burning-KKK-cross-Tea-Party-229x300.jpg


HayesKKK2.jpg


is just political theater by the left to drive a wedge between the people and win elections.

No one is dismissing legitimate racism unless of course your definition of legitimate racism is disagreeing with the left.
 
I felt like with the Obama birth certificate years long attack was fueled by opportunist asses that preyed upon the bigotry of varying levels of the masses.
 
That's my point though.

There's no reason to believe disliking Pres. Obama or George Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon Martin is about race anymore than preference in bubble gum. It's just a cheap political tool used by the left. That's what racism in the United States is today.

Based on everything else you said in that post other than "that's my my point", no....what you quoted from me was not your point because it in no way says the same thing as you are saying.

Yes, there ARE absolutely more reasons to believe that an individuals opposition to President Obama or George Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon had something to do with race then there is to believe that it had something to do with their bubble gum preference. There are flat out racists, and individuals who at times have racist views or take racist actions, still in this country. There are absolutely people who DO have issues with Obama due to racist views, and there are absolutely people who DO engage in aggressive action towards blacks because of racists views. As such, it's absolutely reasonable to believe that there is a potential that someone dislikes the President because of his race. There's a reason to at least examine what possible role race played in regards to Martin and Zimmerman.

The issue is that, sans some additional evidence or supporting factors, proclaiming unequivocably that it IS due to racism is problematic. But soo too is suggesting there's NO reason to believe someone is opposing the President because of race as a broad statement.

That also leads to the next issue, judging individual situations on broad stereotypes and assumptions...or taking an individual situation and applying that to a broader group.

Pictures such as the flaming Tea Party one ARE problematic; they antagonize racial relations and ignorantly depict an entire group of people akin to an unquestionably racist organization with a long history of physical violence. It's an action akin to "Godwin's Law" and serves nothing but to further the divide. HOWEVER, utilizing that to justify the knee jerk reaction of stating "RACE CARD" at any point race is suggested as even a POTENTIAL factor is ALSO damaging and problematic.

You talk about "wedges" and people out to win "elections" and acting as if "The Left" is alone on dismissing anyones view on racial issues other than their own...while you sit here and utilize race as a wedge issue to score cheap political points and declare your definitive argument of what's "legitimate" and what's not as absolute truth. What you are doing is no different than those who create those images, what you do is no less damage to racial relations than them; your actions are simply the flip side of the same coin.
 
I felt like with the Obama birth certificate years long attack was fueled by opportunist asses that preyed upon the bigotry of varying levels of the masses.

Of course you would, and not a one considered it a Constitutional question. :roll:
 
Of course you would, and not a one considered it a Constitutional question. :roll:

A constitutional question that was answered early on. Then the demand for long form...then the ongoing doubt about the long form.....

Idle curiosity, when has any POTUS before this been asked for their "long form birth certificate"?
 
So do you think the people who influenced the birthers "the propagandists" were racist or just politically motivated assholes that will do anything do get their way?

Good question. It depends on how you define racist. I think most were simply "politically motivated assholes that will do anything do get their way," as you put it, with maybe a small number of people who are themselves racists but I also think many might have been aware that their tactics would push racial buttons with some and to them the ends justified the means. If someone is not a racist personally but uses tactics to create animosity toward someone he wants to create disfavor toward knowing those tactics will in some cases appeal to the racist attitudes of his audience, does that make that person a racist himself? I honestly don't know the answer to that question and my theory also does not give the propagandists the benefit of the doubt that they might be oblivious to the racist leanings of some of their followers.
 
I am curious.

In the multiyear long fascination with Obama's birth certificate....does anyone see racism or using the race card with the discussion?

Was there really a "multiyear long fascination with Obama's birth certificate"?

It seems more accurate to say there was a multi-year long fascination with calling Republicans racist because Donald Trump likes media attention. There were plenty of more mainstream people on the left questioning John McCain's eligibility to run for POTUS based on his birth place but no one is calling those people racist.
 
Based on everything else you said in that post other than "that's my my point", no....what you quoted from me was not your point because it in no way says the same thing as you are saying.

Yes, there ARE absolutely more reasons to believe that an individuals opposition to President Obama or George Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon had something to do with race then there is to believe that it had something to do with their bubble gum preference. There are flat out racists, and individuals who at times have racist views or take racist actions, still in this country. There are absolutely people who DO have issues with Obama due to racist views, and there are absolutely people who DO engage in aggressive action towards blacks because of racists views. As such, it's absolutely reasonable to believe that there is a potential that someone dislikes the President because of his race. There's a reason to at least examine what possible role race played in regards to Martin and Zimmerman.

The issue is that, sans some additional evidence or supporting factors, proclaiming unequivocably that it IS due to racism is problematic. But soo too is suggesting there's NO reason to believe someone is opposing the President because of race as a broad statement.

That also leads to the next issue, judging individual situations on broad stereotypes and assumptions...or taking an individual situation and applying that to a broader group.

Pictures such as the flaming Tea Party one ARE problematic; they antagonize racial relations and ignorantly depict an entire group of people akin to an unquestionably racist organization with a long history of physical violence. It's an action akin to "Godwin's Law" and serves nothing but to further the divide. HOWEVER, utilizing that to justify the knee jerk reaction of stating "RACE CARD" at any point race is suggested as even a POTENTIAL factor is ALSO damaging and problematic.

You talk about "wedges" and people out to win "elections" and acting as if "The Left" is alone on dismissing anyones view on racial issues other than their own...while you sit here and utilize race as a wedge issue to score cheap political points and declare your definitive argument of what's "legitimate" and what's not as absolute truth. What you are doing is no different than those who create those images, what you do is no less damage to racial relations than them; your actions are simply the flip side of the same coin.

"I don't like Pres. Obama" is only a racist statement if you believe "racism" means disagreeing with the left.

And that's really all there is to say on the subject.

The worst part is we're going to go through this nonsense all over again in 2016 when Hillary Clinton runs for POTUS only then you'll be insisting anyone who isn't voting for her hates women. It's an idiotic viewpoint but you'll just chalk that up to me being racist and sexist.

:shrug:
 
A constitutional question that was answered early on. Then the demand for long form...then the ongoing doubt about the long form.....

Idle curiosity, when has any POTUS before this been asked for their "long form birth certificate"?

I don't know, what other presidential candidate needed to be asked? I'm not a birther, but I understand what started the concern. Obama also hesitated in producing stuff, which didn't help.
 
"I don't like Pres. Obama" is only a racist statement if you believe "racism" means disagreeing with the left.

I didn't suggest that "I Don't like Pres. Obama" is inherently a racist statement.

What I suggested was that your claim that "There's no reason" to believe that a persons Disagreement with Obama is due to race was incorrect.

A person saying "I don't like President Obama" may absolutely be saying that, in part or completely, due to race. Without additional information, it's entirely impossible to make an affirmative claim either way. All that can be said is the person doesn't like Obama. WHY he doesn't like Obama, based on that statement alone, can't be determined with absolute accuracy. They CAN be speculated about, and depending on the context of the person, one reasonable thing to speculate over is because of his race as there are still individuals in this country that hold racist views or feelings.
And that's really all there is to say on the subject.

The worst part is we're going to go through this nonsense all over again in 2016 when Hillary Clinton runs for POTUS only then you'll be insisting anyone who isn't voting for her hates women. It's an idiotic viewpoint but you'll just chalk that up to me being racist and sexist.

It's hillarious that you're acting with this persecution complex regarding people making assumptions about what you think or believe in the very same sentence and post that you're flat out making assumptions about me and stating things that I've never...in any way shape or form...stated.

No where have I suggested, what so ever, that people being opposed to Obama automatically suggests or indicates that they're racist NOR that it's reasonable to assume they are. Why then you believe that I'd suggest someone disliking Hillary is "sexist" is beyond me, other than your own attempt to stereotype and grossly misrepresent peoples motivations and views.
 
That's my point though.

There's no reason to believe disliking Pres. Obama or George Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon Martin is about race anymore than preference in bubble gum. It's just a cheap political tool used by the left. That's what racism in the United States is today. Images like this:

Burning-KKK-cross-Tea-Party-229x300.jpg


HayesKKK2.jpg


is just political theater by the left to drive a wedge between the people and win elections.

No one is dismissing legitimate racism unless of course your definition of legitimate racism is disagreeing with the left.

Much like crying about racism accusations by a few people is political theater by "the right" to drive a wedge between the people and win elections.

Most of us on "the left" don't run around accusing everyone of racism. Oddly, I do get accused of racism by a handful of people on the right if I disagree with them on certain issues, or disagree with a black conservative. Funny that....
 
I've been black my whole life. For almost my entire adult life I'm been a registered republican, drawn to the GOP because of a perception I had of the Republicans being the party that stood for doing the right things; God, family and country. I have almost always voted Republican in every election with a handful of exceptions prior to 2012 where I saw my role as making a statement of protest over things like holding the President to ridiculous double standards, voter suppression and other troubling problems I see with the current GOP culture. Up until recently I've thought of myself as a conservative in good standing. I say all that to lay a foundation on who I am and where I stand.

One thing that's like fingernails on a chalkboard for me is when I hear people, almost always conservative in my experience, complain that someone is "using the race car." I happen to believe America does have a racist history and holdovers from that unfortunate aspect of history still occasionally can be seen today. But I think I'm fair about it. I defended and supported President Bush when he was accused of having less concern for Katrina victims because of race, which was a complete untruth. I stood up for Don Imus, realizing all he did was tell a joke that hurt no one but himself. I stood up for Paula Deen reasoning she has quite an imagination, wanted to create an early south ambiance at an event then apologized once she realized she'd offended people she loves.

That all said I do think racism exists today and think it needs to be called out as such, especially what I call institutional racism so that it can be discussed and hopefully corrected. Institutional racism isn't some guy making a joke somebody got offended by or a 5 second sound bite from a speech that's magnified to try to define a person's entire life or the characters of his friends. Institutional racism is an assumption that any black person who achieves something in life probably got it through racial preferences unless unlike his white counterparts has figured out how to do his job 1000 times better than anybody else leaving no question in anybody's mind he's not just good, he's the best ever. Institutional racism is assuming anybody who looks Hispanic should be suspected of illegal immigration and unlike other Americans should give himself an extra 30 minutes travel time in case he's spotted and interrogated to make sure he's legit and maybe carry his birth certificate and a utility bill along with his driver's license at all times.

I take exception to the politically correct culture that some seek to create by immediately demonizing any complaint of possible racism often even before investigating the facts. It seems they'll acknowledge racism if its blatantly obvious...sometimes... but then probably define it as an isolated case. However, less severe cases of racism should never be spoken of or the speaker will be vilified as "using the race card." The net result is since only major cases of racism end up being addressed while less serious cases are overlooked under political correctness pressures, then society is perpetually slightly racist because is non-PC to talk about the "slightly racist" stuff.

My question is what's worse: running the risk of someone using the race card where in essence false assertions of racism are made or creating a culture where all assertions of racism are dismissed including legitimate racism?

The first poll option should be "Society should NOT mention race..." Sorry.

It's worse to create a culture where all assertions of racism are dismissed.

When you analyze how people behave in discussions on race and racism, you can often understand them better when you figure out who they identify with in whatever scenario is being described as racist. More often than not, a person of color is going to identify with the victim of the racism. They're going to recall similar events in their life or the lives of their loved ones when they hear about the situation. As a result, they're going to find the allegation believable or, at the very least, worthy of investigation. For example, many black people have been followed around stores by those who suspect them of wanting to steal. So, if a black person tells a story where a shopkeeper followed her around a store, but ignored white shoppers, the black listeners are likely to agree that racism was involved.

Now, when you look at the white (usually conservative) people who frequently dismiss allegations of racism as "playing the race card", you'll often find that they identify with the person or organization being accused of racism. They identify with the accused because, like people of color, they recall events in their lives or the lives of their loved ones that remind them of situation. However, in their recollections, they are not the victim of the racism, they or their loved one is the person being accused of racism in a way that they perceive as unjust. So, for them, the more pervasive - and thus greater - evil is being called a racist. Therefore, when they hear an allegation of racism, they're more likely to minimize or deny it because, in their perceived experience, allegations of racism are usually just some oversensitive liberals whining about nothing and misinterpreting things. (This is also why the same people are often racist as well - because they have no impetus to examine their prejudices. They just blame everyone else.)

For the record, there are also people of color who are reluctant to take allegations of racism seriously as well and that usually comes from internalized racism which breeds a desire to be accepted by the dominant culture, particularly people in the dominant culture who don't like "other black people" or "other Hispanics", etc..
 
For the record, there are also people of color who are reluctant to take allegations of racism seriously as well and that usually comes from internalized racism which breeds a desire to be accepted by the dominant culture, particularly people in the dominant culture who don't like "other black people" or "other Hispanics", etc..

There is a point to that, but it runs into the same issue as Marxists ran into with the concept of "false consciousness." It places legitimacy on one mode of thought for a group and deligitimizes other beliefs held by the same group of people.
 
Another point on this - a more constructive point perhaps - is that this is an issue that affects almost everyone in certain respects. What I mean to say is that almost everyone - barring the most empathetic, tree-hugging vegans - uncritically dismisses issues that are not serious or personal to them. The bottom line is that unless something impacts you in a pervasive or otherwise notable way, it's easy to dismiss.

A good story to illustrate my point is how this vegan kid I went to college with was affected by the lack of vegan options in our dining hall. Most of us non-vegans were dismissive of it. He was always upset, but we were just like "get over it." Our attitude wasn't malicious and our disregard wasn't even entirely conscious. It's just that the concern for vegan options was not even in our worldview and because we weren't particularly interested in leaving our worldview - young narcissists that we were - we were dismissive.

This story illustrates the point that dismissiveness is usually a symptom of being stuck in one's own small little world. With that in mind, I would argue that when we find ourselves being dismissive of other people's complaints, we may want to get out of our little world and investigate the rest of it. Maybe we'll find out that we were right to not take it seriously, but maybe we'll find out that we weren't.
 
Great post.

I think it's important that all of us learn "the difference." Over and over again on this board I've seen racism allegations bandied about with casual abandon. I've come to understand a few things:

  • When you can't discredit the message, some people discredit the messenger.
  • Some people revel in Gotcha Games and look in woodpiles for the opportunity to play them.
When we 'play the race card' unnecessarily, we diminish the real thing. Like the boy who cried wolf. And those who play it consistently are eventually marginalized by a society as they come to understand their end game.

To specifically answer your question:



Your second option is definitely more damaging.

Well put Maggie

I think the definition of racism in today's society has two extreme ends. And both ends are defined by raw emotions instead of logic.
 
There is a point to that, but it runs into the same issue as Marxists ran into with the concept of "false consciousness." It places legitimacy on one mode of thought for a group and deligitimizes other beliefs held by the same group of people.
"Delegitimizing" alternative beliefs is only a problem when there are reasonable alternatives. Frequent reluctance to take allegations of racism seriously is, in our society, unreasonable given that both extensive research and accounts from people of color demonstrate the pervasiveness of racism in our country. Such reluctance is even more unreasonable when it is takes the form of accusing others of "playing the race card" because it's an entirely uncritical dismissal.
 
It's worse to create a culture where all assertions of racism are dismissed.

When you analyze how people behave in discussions on race and racism, you can often understand them better when you figure out who they identify with in whatever scenario is being described as racist. More often than not, a person of color is going to identify with the victim of the racism. They're going to recall similar events in their life or the lives of their loved ones when they hear about the situation. As a result, they're going to find the allegation believable or, at the very least, worthy of investigation. For example, many black people have been followed around stores by those who suspect them of wanting to steal. So, if a black person tells a story where a shopkeeper followed her around a store, but ignored white shoppers, the black listeners are likely to agree that racism was involved.

Now, when you look at the white (usually conservative) people who frequently dismiss allegations of racism as "playing the race card", you'll often find that they identify with the person or organization being accused of racism. They identify with the accused because, like people of color, they recall events in their lives or the lives of their loved ones that remind them of situation. However, in their recollections, they are not the victim of the racism, they or their loved one is the person being accused of racism in a way that they perceive as unjust. So, for them, the more pervasive - and thus greater - evil is being called a racist. Therefore, when they hear an allegation of racism, they're more likely to minimize or deny it because, in their perceived experience, allegations of racism are usually just some oversensitive liberals whining about nothing and misinterpreting things. (This is also why the same people are often racist as well - because they have no impetus to examine their prejudices. They just blame everyone else.)

For the record, there are also people of color who are reluctant to take allegations of racism seriously as well and that usually comes from internalized racism which breeds a desire to be accepted by the dominant culture, particularly people in the dominant culture who don't like "other black people" or "other Hispanics", etc..

Brilliant.
 
"Delegitimizing" alternative beliefs is only a problem when there are reasonable alternatives. Frequent reluctance to take allegations of racism seriously is, in our society, unreasonable given that both extensive research and accounts from people of color demonstrate the pervasiveness of racism in our country. Such reluctance is even more unreasonable when it is takes the form of accusing others of "playing the race card" because it's an entirely uncritical dismissal.

I mostly agree, but I'm just a bit more hesitant to push consciousness in a direction that would automatically disavow perspectives of dissenters within the racial minority.
 
I mostly agree, but I'm just a bit more hesitant to push consciousness in a direction that would automatically disavow perspectives of dissenters within the racial minority.
Fair enough. I can understand why you'd be hesitant. However, for me, if I measure a position against facts (as demonstrated by extensive research and personal accounts) and that position is completely counter to those facts, then I believe it ought not to be perceived as a legitimate perspective no matter who is saying it.

Moreover, as a point of clarity, I do not take the position that all dissenting perspectives with a racial minority are the result of internalized racism and a desire to belong to the dominant population. I'm drawing that conclusion only for the specific position that most or all allegations of racism are just people "playing the race card." All other dissenting (or conforming) opinions are evaluated separately according to how they stand up to the facts.
 
Back
Top Bottom