Racial Illiteracy at the New York Times

The usually savvy Frank Rich, a columnist at the New York Times, needs to get a new fact checker, for he really got it wrong in his May 11, 2008 column (NYT photo credit). His column first chides Senator Clinton and critiques Senator McCain, while praising Senator Obama for his wisdom in running in 2008 and for relying on and generating many new voters, especially the young specific-called “millennials.” Here is the lulu of an error in an otherwise interesting rant:

Guess what: there are racists in America and, yes, the occasional rubes (even among Obama voters). . . . But there are many more white working-class voters, both Clinton and Obama supporters, who prefer Democratic policies after seven years of G.O.P. failure. And there is little evidence to suggest that there are enough racists of any class in America, let alone in swing states, to determine the results come fall.

Actually, there is a ton of evidence of “enough racist” thinkers, enough evidence to suggest that a majority of whites still think aggressively out of the white racist framing of African Americans and others of color. Rich might look here and here and here , for starters. Then he might check the many studies reported by Harvard University’s Project Implicit or the studies we have cited here on the still-common linking together by whites of African Americans with ape-like imagery (see the previous blogs on using Curious George to mock Obama, for example). And then there is the voting data showing that Senator Obama has gotten just 41 percent of the moderate and liberal white voters so far in the 29 Democratic Party primaries and caucuses for which there is exit poll data. And significantly less than that in West Virginia yesterday. And we could go on and on with such substantial data.

As Fyodor Dostoyevsky famously wrote (hat tip to Project Implicit):

Every man has reminiscences which he would not tell to everyone but only his friends. He has other matters in his mind which he would not reveal even to his friends, but only to himself, and that in secret. But there are other things which a man is afraid to tell even to himself, and every decent man has a number of such things stored away in his mind.

These everyday mechanisms suggest the ways in which whites’ (and others’) racist views are often held these days. As various researchers have shown, they are often only revealed to friends or relatives backstage. Or sometimes only in the secrecy of the voting booth. And often without the old racist views passing through the conscious mind. On this matter of high levels of backstage and implicit racism, as well as frontstage racism, there is much evidence.

Journalists, please take note!

Two-Faced Racism at the Secret Service

Slate.com has posted scanned copies of the racist emails the Secret Service has finally turned over to a judge in the long-running lawsuit filed by African American employees. This batch of emails sent in recent years (several date from 2003) by at least 20 high-ranking supervisors in the Secret Serviceare excellent examples of two-faced racism. As blogger Ta-Nehisi Coates points out, many of the emails seem fixated on Jesse Jackson and the jokes in the emails focus obsessively on sexual innuendos about black men’s bodies. The majority of the racist emails posted at Slate.com take the form of jokes of the sort that many whites use to bond with each other in whites-only private, backstage spaces. One of the emails is noteworthy because it departs from this pattern. Instead, it’s more of a general rant that encapsulates much of the white racial frame. What’s especially interesting about this rant is that the middle-class, college educated, well-employed, white, male, heterosexual, author of the email characterizes himself as such a victim of the current cultural milieu of “reverse racism.” Here’s part of what the (very long) email says:

“Reverse racism and political correctness are destroying virtually every aspect of American life. We’re completely surrounded by illegal aliens (who even illegally vote in our elections…) suck up our welfare dollars, steal public educations, commit massive amounts of crimes to include rape and murder, and refuse to learn English (why the @#^* should I have to choose which language I want to use at the ATM? It wastes my time and disgusts me.) …”

Interestingly, part of what the author of this racist email is complaining about is the technology of ATM’s – many of which offer built-in options for selecting different languages.   These kinds of options that build racial or ethnic identity into the machine is what Lisa Nakamura has referred to as “menu driven” racial identity in the digital era.  While some writers have suggested that cyberspace offers there are new, liberating possibilities for moving away from old forms oppression tied to modernity, the actual picture is more complex.    What used to be an ‘old media’ form of racism, shared either face-to-face, written on the back of lynching postcards, or via telephone, today takes on a slightly new twist when some of these old forms of backstage communication make the transition to digital media and such messages are now sent between whites via email. In this instance, the emergence of cyber racism opens up the possibility of disrupting old patterns through the mechanism of forwarding email. What was once only said in private can now, through forwarded email, move beyond the private whites-only space for which such communication was intended. However, such a possibility was not sufficient to lead to an actual interruption in the transmission of white supremacy.  Note that in this instance, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of a single white ally within the Secret Service who would ‘break rank’ and forward these racist emails outside the white-only intended audience.  Instead, what it took to wrest these emails from the backstage and bring them into the frontstage for all to scrutinize was it always takes to change entrenched forms of oppression:  political action.   In this instance, that took the form of a lawsuit by African American employees of the Secret Service.


The rest of the email quoted above goes on to make the case for the importance of intersectionality in discussions of racism.  He goes on to include elements of gender and sexuality in the latter part of his rant:

“I’m not even going to start on partial birth abortions and selling baby parts to heal old people (Are the Nazis back in power doing experiments?).  Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, the two lesbians down the street from me…with their adopted Korean SON, menorahs in the front window….are a typical American family.   And I’m the sicko nut because I think they’re about as far from what God intended a normal family to look like as giant grasshoppers playing croquet on my front lawn.  But I’m the one with the screwed up view of reality.”

Screwed up, that’s one interpretation.   With this last, broad rhetorical swipe, the author pulls together themes of reproductive and sexual politics, homophobia, antisemitism, and combines it with yet more racism – this time against the adopted child of his lesbian neighbors.   The views he expresses here are indistinguishable from the overt white supremacist websites that I examine in my work.   Yet, people in power and the vast majority of whites in this country, continue to maintain that we have moved”beyond” racism.   Emails like the one discussed here suggest a far different reality.

Republican Official Admits Racism Helps Them Win Against Senator Obama

         Finally, and belatedly, the mainstream media and websites, in this case Roger Simon at politico.com, have begun to analyze some white-racist-attitudes issues basic to the Republican party campaign and strategy from the beginning:

I was talking the other day to a prominent Republican who asked me what I thought John McCain’s strongest issues would be in the general election. Lower taxes and the argument he will be better able to protect America from its enemies, I said. . . .  The Republican shook his head. “You’re missing the most important one,” he said. “Race. McCain runs against Barack Obama and the race vote is worth maybe 15 percent to McCain.” 

He then asks what percentage of white Americans are shown in polls to have trouble voting for a black person: 

An AP-Yahoo poll conducted April 2-14 found that “about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black for president.”. . .  I was amazed that 8 percent of respondents were willing to admit this to a pollster. And I figure that the true figure is much higher. The same poll, by the way, found that 15 percent of voters think Obama is a Muslim. He is, in fact, a Christian. But thinking a person is a Muslim probably does not encourage you to vote for him in America today.

Notice too the link to the stereotyped Muslim story I dealt with some time back. He then quotes from a Post article by Kevin Merida and Jose Antonio Vargas in Scranton, Pa.: 

“Barack Obama’s campaign opened a downtown office here on March 15, just in time for the annual St. Patrick’s Day parade. It was not a glorious day for Team Obama. Some of the green signs the campaign had trucked in by the thousands were burned during the parade, and campaign volunteers — white volunteers — were greeted with racial slurs.” 

And now we have the North Carolina Republican Party about to run skewed anti-Obama ads saying because of Dr. Wright he is “too extreme” for North Carolina, even as Senator John McCain asked them not to do so. 

          Recall the numerous research studies I have cited before that show that the apparent decrease in whites antiblack prejudices and stereotypes in opinion surveys from the 1930s to the present day is very misleading and probably reflects to a significant degree an increased white concern for social acceptability, especially in public frontstage places, including phone calls with pollsters (strangers). Today, it is less socially acceptable for whites to publicly avow strong old-fashioned racist attitudes in diverse public spaces, so many whites may reserve most of their blatantly racist comments for the private spheres of home, locker room, and bar—usually with friends and relatives. This does not mean, however, that these old racist views and the white racial frame of which they are part have died out or have no effect on much white thought and action in more diverse public places.

 

         I repeat too what is necessary to reduce racism in our public affairs, including elections: Among others things, we need to actively teach whites (and others) how to “out” backstage racist ideas and performances, those which generate discrimination frontstage. Whites (and others) can counter racist performances by using humor (“Did you learn that joke from the Klan?”), feigning ignorance (“Can you please explain that comment?”), and assertively reframing (to justice, fair play, stewardship, responsibility). Teaching to disrupt racist performances is one key, as is creating support groups for such interveners in everyday racist actions.

        These social science research studies strongly suggest that all Americans concerned with significant racial change must get out and intervene in racist performances. They, and we, must work actively for that change. Such change will not likely come from rather short political campaigns, but only from years of hard action disrupting racist performances — and from hard organizing for racial change, as in the 1930s-1960s civil rights movement.

Naive Political Commentaries and White Racist Performances

Numerous observers of the current political scene, liberal and conservative, seem to think that white racial views are much more liberal than they were a decade or two back and that a political candidate like Senator Barack Obama will not face serious racism if he is the Democratic party nominee. Indeed, many argue white racism is now dead or nearly dead.


However, much social science research suggests clearly this not correct.
Indeed, it is in my view rather naïve and far too influenced by the colorblind rhetoric now dominant across this society. Let us consider just two research studies. Research by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva and Tyrone Forman (“‘I Am Not A Racist But’; Mapping White College Students’ Racial Ideology in the U.S.A.,” Discourse and Society, 2000; see also here) on white students at three major university campuses in the West, South, and Midwest indicates that racial attitudes expressed by whites on short-answer survey items are often quite different from those expressed to similar questions requiring more detailed commentary. For example, on a brief survey item 80 percent of 451 responding college students said that they approved of marriages between blacks and whites. However, when a smaller group of comparable students were interviewed in depth this figure dropped to about one-third. (Ninety percent of this smaller group had shown approval on the survey question.) When given more time to explain their views, the majority of white students expressed significant reservations about marriage across the color line. A similar pattern was found for a question about affirmative action. These whites frequently used a variety of hedging phrases (for example, “I agree and disagree”) to disguise or play down their negative views on various racial issue. Thus, the in-depth interviews strongly indicated that a majority of well-educated whites still hold significantly negative attitudes on issues like racial intermarriage.


Moreover, in a recent research book Leslie Picca and I have examined how whites think and act in regard to overtly racist language, ideas, joking, and other behaviors as they move from public arenas to private networks of friends and relatives. We gathered 626 journals from white college students at more than two dozen colleges and universities in several regions, journals in which they recorded for a few weeks (6-8 weeks on average) various events and incidents taking place around them that entailed some racial issue, image, performance, or understanding. Unmistakable in these relatively brief journals from well-educated white Americans is the harsh and enduring reality of blatantly racist stereotyping and action, much of it accented or performed within their important friendship and kinship networks in what we term backstage settings. In one typical and recent account, for example, one white college student provides details on certain discussions and performances that occur when he gets together with his network of five white male friends:

When any two of us are together, no racial comments or jokes are ever made. However, with the full group membership present, anti-Semitic jokes abound, as do racial slurs and vastly derogatory statements. Jewish people are simply known as “Hebes”, short for Hebrews. . . . Various jokes concerning stereotypes that Jewish people hold were also swapped around the gaming table. . . . These jokes degraded into a rendition of the song “Yellow,” which was re-done [in our group] to represent the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. It contained lines about the shadows of the people being flash burned into the walls. . . . A member of the group also decided that he has the perfect idea for a Hallmark card. On the cover it would have a few kittens in a basket with ribbons and lace. On the inside it would simply say, “You’re a nigger.” I found that incredibly offensive. Supposedly, when questioned about it, the idea of the card was to make it as offensive as humanly possible in order to make the maximal juxtaposition between warm- and ice- hearted. . . . no group is particularly safe from the group’s scathing wit, and the people of Mexico were next to bear the brunt of the jokes.

As children and as adults, whites typically learn a strong white racial frame for viewing the world within personal networks such as these. We expected only a few hundred such accounts such as these from our 626 well-educated white college students. We got 9,000 such accounts of racial events, some 7,500 or so full of blatantly racist performances and commentaries. These white students average about 12 such blatantly accounts in these relatively brief 6-8 week diaries, and almost certainly did not record all they did or saw their white friends and relatives (or sometimes white strangers) do. Multiply that 12 or so events by the millions of white college students, or by the number of all whites over 16 (some 100 million plus) and we can speculate conservatively that tens of millions of such racist events occur in the United States every few weeks or so. “Houston,” as the astronauts say, “we have a problem.”


Seen from the perspective of these research studies, the apparent decrease in antiblack prejudices and stereotypes shown in opinion surveys of whites from the 1930s to the present day is very misleading and probably reflects to a significant degree an increased white concern for outward appearance and social acceptability, especially in public frontstage places, including phone calls with pollsters (strangers). Today, it is less socially acceptable for whites to publicly avow strong old-fashioned racist attitudes in diverse public spaces, so many whites may reserve most of their blatantly racist comments for the private spheres of home, locker room, and bar—usually with friends and relatives. This does not mean, however, that these old racist views and the white racial frame of which they are part have died out or have no effect on much white thought and action in more diverse public places. They are still of great consequence for black Americans and the larger society, as we saw in the Dr. Jeremiah Wright case.


Among others things, we need to actively teach whites (and others) how to “out” backstage racist ideas and performances, those which generate discrimination frontstage. Whites (and others) can counter racist performances by using humor (“Did you learn that joke from the Klan?”), feigning ignorance (“Can you please explain that comment?”), and assertively reframing (to justice, fair play, stewardship, responsibility). Teaching to disrupt racist performances is one key, as is creating support groups for such interveners in everyday racist actions.


These social science research studies strongly suggest that all Americans concerned with significant racial change must get out and intervene in racist performances. They, and we, must work actively for that change. Such change will not likely come from rather short political campaigns, but only from years of hard action disrupting racist performances — and from hard organizing for racial change, as in the 1930s-1960s civil rights movement.


Recall Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr’s. famous words: “Justice for black people will not flow into this society merely from court decisions nor from fountains of political oratory. . . .White America must realize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society.” And in another place, “True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice.”

Planned Parenthood’s Two-Faced Racism Exposed

Recently, a Planned Parenthood executive in Idaho was caught on tape by an anti-abortion group agreeing to a contribution from someone posing as an avowed racist who wanted to increase abortions for African American women so as to increase the chances for college of the caller’s supposed white children. The PP executive accepted the offer of a contribution with eagerness. It is hard to know which is the worst aspect of this story to comment on. On the one hand, we have a white executive not criticizing an aggressively racist philosophy presented on the phone apparently in order to secure a nice contribution. On the other hand, we have an anti-abortion group intentionally and hypocritically making use of a racist-framed call in order to generate bad publicity for an organization that has played a key role in working for the rights of women in the United States. In neither case do we see real white concern for the problems of everyday racism faced by black women in the United States. The insensitivity of both sides is nearly incomprehensible. Planned Parenthood’s state and national offices issued apologies for the racist incident relatively quickly. The fact is, this kind of “sting” could probably have been conducted at any white liberal non-profit and gotten the same result. The point is the pervasive two-faced racism, especially in “backstage” settings where only whites are present, not the racially selective reproductive policies of Planned Parenthood.