CON GAMES: Race Not The Case
December 3rd, 2007 at 08:02am Michael Conniff 2
Within the last week, I have found myself in the awkward position of having two of my regular guests on the “Con Games” radio show accused of “racism”—one for his stance on immigration, the other for his views on Palestinians.
Now I know for a fact that neither Mike McGarry, the co-founder of the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform (CAIR), nor Barry Schochet, the show’s political expert based in Washington, D.C., are racist. Trust me on this: their views about illegal aliens and/or a Palestinian homeland have nothing, nada, to do with race. They are both gentle, kind, caring people who happen to be passionate about politics. When they talk about tough, intractable problems on the show—as we so often do—the passion comes out.
But they’re not racist in any way, shape, or form. So why would they both stand accused of the same crime? And what does that have to do with Barack Obama cleaning Hillary Clinton’s clock in the Iowa caucus polls?
To say racism does not exist is to signal your own stupidity, and I’m not quite ready to do that. It’s out there and it’s mean and nasty. We like to think it exists in dark places where it has to retreat, but the plain truth is racism is as likely to be found in the State House of Boston as it is on the backroads of the Deep South.
Racism exists and can get as ugly as it gets—but it ain’t what it used to be, because the United States of America is far less racist than it was fifty or even twenty years ago. In “The Coldest Winter,” David Halberstam’s book about the Korean police action, one of the U.S. Generals is portrayed as a racist meathead, and that’s now par for the course when racism finds its way into print. When radio talk show host Don Imus opened mouth and inserted foot about “nappy-headed hos” they threw him off the air. (Though he returned much the richer in spirit and dinero this week.) But that’s typical. Random racism is never praised and always decried when it slips through the veil.
The other thing about these examples is that they’re obvious: the General’s action, the talk show host’s words are beyond dispute. Covert racism exists on many levels, of course, and will continue as long as homo saps walk upright. But as a moving, driving, pulverizing force in American politics those days are long-gone.
When racism is deployed, as it was in connection with “Con Games,” it is merely as a name-calling, end-of-days type moment that ends the debate.
“You’re a racist.”
“No I’m not.”
There’s nothing much else to say once you call somebody something so despicable. But it’s a bad idea in other, more fundamental ways. To reduce complex problems to primordial racial concerns is to eliminate any hope for a solution, like calling a person a rapist and then expecting them to join your touch-feely focus group about men and women together.
No way, Jose.
As for Obama, I have predicted from the start that he is going to win because race is not the case in the 2008 Presidential primary. I admit that when John McCain was accused of siring a baby out of wedlock in the 2000 South Carolina Republican primary, race indubitably was the case. But that incident was the death rattle or racism, not its re-emergence as an issue, and for Karl Rove or George W. Bush to accept any connection to the slander would have been political suicide then and there.
Being black is actually going to help Obama, and if you don’t think so, consider the entrance of Oprah Winfrey into the race on his side. She, too, is black, but like Obama her skin color is not the thing that counts about her. People trust Oprah implicitly and explicitly, and her support could well through the Presidency to Obama.
Race, you see, is no longer the case. Racists abound in places, but most calls of racism are weak attempts to hit ’em where they ain’t.
Entry Filed under: Politics, Immigration, Basalt, Colorado, Con Games, Foreign Policy, Pitkin County, The West, United Post
9 Comments Add your own
1. reckless G | December 3rd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Racist – NOUN; somebody who hates others who are not of his or her own race
Racist – ADJECTIVE; based on prejudices and stereotypes related to race
Reiterating what I said on the show this morning; there is a distinction between calling a remark “racist” (ADJECTIVE) and calling a person “a racist” (NOUN).
I agree with Michael that labeling a person this way just ends the conversation, but defining the characteristics of a remark begins a conversation. It let’s us dissect the thinking that led someone to make the remark, which is what I did in my post; The Myth of Hatred.
How I use words and how words are used against me has been a large part of my life for the last six years. While I’ve often been the victim of personal attacks and libelous accusations, I’ve been very careful to criticize policies, actions, attitudes and NOT the character of specific people or groups of people. That’s not to say I’ve always succeeded, but an examination of my writing will produce very few examples of real attempts to label people.
As I told Michael, I’ve certainly made racist comments (ADJECTIVE) in my lifetime, but they’ve been made out of ignorance not because I’m a racist (NOUN). This is what I think happened in Barry Schochet’s case. Out of ignorance, he made a blanket statement that reflected his attitude toward a situation, in this case; the Israel/Palestine conflict. In response, I explained why I think it was false and why I think that attitude persists. I was attacking the statement, not the person.
In my opinion, accusing someone of calling another person a racist, as Michael did here and several times on his show today, is just as bad as calling someone a racist. It’s a serious accusation and one I don’t take lightly.
We should probably be more careful with the words we choose, as we’re more than likely going to be judged by them, especially if we're using those words in a public forum such as radio or newspapers or even a blog.
2. Mitch.Mulhall | December 4th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Sue,
[Reiterating what I said on the show this morning; there is a distinction between calling a remark “racist” (ADJECTIVE) and calling a person “a racist” (NOUN).]
Two things:
First, you pose a distinction with no difference. To declare a statement racist is to impugn the person who said or wrote it, and there’s not a civil libertarian alive today who would disagree. In Michael's example, Don Imus made a racist statement, and CBS fired him for it. He was not condemned for saying “nappy headed hos” (ADJECTIVE) but for embracing the thinking (NOUN) necessary to give rise to that phrase. Similarly, Trent Lott lost his seat as Senate Majority Leader for intimating that Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond would have made a good president. And again, Jimmy the Greek lost his not inconsiderable status in the sports-casting world for a tragically unfortunate explanation of the superiority of black athletes. No one argues that these statements were racist, and no one holds separate the statements from the people who made them. These and like events set precedence that contradict your assertion. I do not question your intentions—I don’t think you intended to call Mr. Schochet a racist. Nevertheless, it is a tortured rationale that puts forth the idea that a standard applied equally to far more public figures does not apply to you.
Second, your premise that Mr. Schochet’s statement was racist is not defensible. You paraphrase him as saying “a majority of Palestinians do not want peace and want to take all of Israel for themselves.” This sentence, if accurately paraphrased, characterizes the motives of the majority of Palestinians. It does single out a group of people as some lesser form of humanity, nor attribute lesser human capabilities based on ethnicity.
Rather than playing the race card, perhaps a better approach would have been to refute Barry’s assertion.
Cheers,
3. reckless G | December 4th, 2007 at 10:27 am
“Nevertheless, it is a tortured rationale that puts forth the idea that a standard applied equally to far more public figures does not apply to you.”
The standard being that someone who accuses someone of making a racist remark is accusing them of being a racist? Come on Mitch, that’s quite a stretch. Was Don Imus ever actually accused of being a racist? Trent Lott? If they are now considered racists, why do they still retain jobs in the public arena? Because though they were held to account for their racist (ADJ) statements, they were not permanently branded as racists (N).
I say the standard that was set by your examples is to call to account those who make racist remarks. That’s what I did with Schochet.
“It does[n’t] single out a group of people as some lesser form of humanity, nor attribute lesser human capabilities based on ethnicity.”
You're describing the definition of a racist (NOUN). Neither Don Imus’ statement or Trent Lott’s fit this category. A racist remark is one that groups people under a negative judgement, which is exactly what Schochet’s statement did. Remember the definition of Racist – ADJECTIVE; based on prejudices and stereotypes related to race. Prejudices and stereotypes are what motivated Schochet’s statement.
“Rather than playing the race card, perhaps a better approach would have been to refute Barry’s assertion.”
The argument here is not whether Schochet is a racist, it is whether I called him one. I did not. I called his remark racist and used it as a basis to refute his assertion.
Mitch, as I consider you Aspen Post’s foremost authority on word usage and misuse, I expected more from you.
4. Mitch.Mulhall | December 4th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Sue,
Quite like the mosquito in the nudist colony, I'm overwhelmed by the question, "Where do I begin?"
But let me start here: [A racist remark is one that groups people under a negative judgement.] You could not cast a broader net, could you? By this logic, anyone who objects to smoking in restaurants is a racist.
Cheers,
5. reckless G | December 4th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
I don't believe "smokers" is a race. Now I suppose you're going to tell me Palestinians aren't either. Is “French people stink” a racist remark? How about “Asians are terrible drivers?” If those are racist remarks then “the Palestinian’s don’t want peace” is too.
By the way, I notice no one has called me on the fact that I also called Barry’s remark “arrogant.” By Michael’s and your standards this means I’m calling Barry arrogant. So either “arrogant” is not a hot button word like “racist,” or the consensus is that Barry is arrogant.
6. Mitch.Mulhall | December 4th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
[I don't believe "smokers" is a race.] But by your definition, they don't have to be. The test is "a group" classified "under a negative judgment."
Frankly, I was surprised you didn't wind up and let hurl something like this:
Instead, you came at the discussion with that ill-considered generality...
Cheers,
7. reckless G | December 4th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
I thought I had established in my first comment that the “people,” as in “group” we are discussing is a race of people.
The statement that establishes this premise is; “Racist – ADJECTIVE; based on prejudices and stereotypes related to race”
It would hardly do to use the word “racist” without regard to race, as it is the root of the word.
OK if you want to get really picky about it, I should have said “a racist statement is one that groups “groups of people” or a “race of people” under a negative judgement. Does that satisfy you?
Really Mitch, you are going quite far out on a limb to disprove my assertion that Barry made a racist remark. Your argument becomes weaker the farther out you climb.
8. Mitch.Mulhall | December 4th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
[It would hardly do to use the word “racist” without regard to race, as it is the root of the word.]
How obvious, then, to at least acknowledge race in a definition of racism. An oversight, I'm sure. That said, I see by your remarks that the great convenience to being your own authority is that it makes your points self-correcting.
[Your argument becomes weaker the farther out you climb.]
And your petty torment had all the efficacy of a CIA operation--it hit everything in the room except its intended target.
Cheers,
9. reckless G | December 5th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Being my own authority, I declare that I hit a bullseye!
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed