I initially wrote this as a comment but feel that it should be a diary of its own because I believe it gets to the heart of the current conflict here. I thought of making this version slightly different from the original to reflect the context of the comment to which I was responding. Instead I've chosen to copy both comments below, the first was from LaurenMonica. Some typos were corrected from my original text and I've added some additional commentary at the bottom. I will be in and out this morning and will address comments in as timely a manner as I can.
Anyone calling an AA "boy" or else, is racist. (4+ / 0-)
Anyone posting a racist video to back up an Obama bashing diary, is either racist or racially insensitive
Anyone saying that AA or Latinos are who they are because of affirmative action (I saw last week a poster throwing that line to other AA posters here and got one tip), is either racist or racially insensitive.
Anyone feeling the need to always bring up Lieberman being jew to bash him, is anti-semite or racially insensitive.
....etc
There is no debate on what it's racist or not.
And my response:
Yes, you are describing unambiguous cases (0+ / 0-)
There are many others which are not so easy to categorize. A very fundamental concept to which many people here and elsewhere are blind is the idea that racism is an interpretation, not a "thing" per se. A table is a table and there is nothing ambiguous about that. A statement or action must be evaluated and interpreted as to whether or not it is racist, whether intended or not.
There are obvious cases of racism and racial insensitivity such as those you mention above. Any FAIR-MINDED observer will reach the conclusion that they are examples of racism. Other instances are not so simple to interpret. One example would be the claim made by many progressives that Obama has shown himself to be weak in his dealings with the Republicans and Blue Dogs. First of all, this itself is an interpretation. Some believe it to be true, others not, others are somewhere in the middle. And there are many here who claim that stating this belief or interpretation is racist. Why? Because it somehow emasculates the president and black men have historically been emasculated due to racism.
I see this as one of those middle-ish gray areas where, depending on how the view is presented, it can be racist. I believe the president could have and should have taken a much stronger stance at the beginning of his presidency. This is a political opinion. It does not mean or imply that he himself is a weak man, nor does it make any attempt to analyze him or attribute his behavior to some character flaw - race-based or otherwise. And despite the claims of many in the ratings abuse clique, simply stating this opinion is not a racist act. I would hold the identical opinion of a white president who acted in this manner, and in fact did when Clinton was in office.
OTOH, when I see comments that call him spineless or say that he has no balls, I consider those comments to be, at best, racially clueless - and that is extending a lot of benefit of the doubt. There is no question that the imagery associated with this has racist associations, the only question is the intent of the author of the statement.
Beyond the gray areas of ambiguity there are also cases in which you need to do a bit of mental gymnastics to arrive at a racist interpretation. For example, the other day I saw Brit threaten to HR a comment as racist. The comment suggested that Obama was the Republicans' "Manchurian Candidate" who had infiltrated the Democratic Party to pull it to the right. Brit claimed that this was a racist teaparty meme - "Google it". Excuse me, the teapartiers think that Obama is a Republican plant? No, they apply the "Manchurian Candidate" metaphor to claim that the president is an infiltrating Muslim/Communist/Fascist Anti-colonialist, or some such nonsense. But despite the fact that the metaphor was being used in a manner that was purely political, Brit jumped on this with the racism accusation.
Another example was a while back when I read a comment that claimed that the president had sold out the progressive community. This comment was HR'd with the claim that the term "sellout" has a special meaning in the AA community, denoting someone who turns their back on the community to gain favor among the white power structure. I pointed out that in the white community the term sellout is typically used to describe musicians who sacrifice their artistic integrity to make more money - Phil Collins and Genesis being the most common association with the term. Interestingly enough, I recently saw icebergslim being attacked as a "fucking sellout", I believe by the same person who was involved in this conversation. So is the use of this term racist? Or is it only racist when a white person uses it to describe a black person and not when a black person uses it to describe another black person?
This is why we have such a problem dealing with the race issue here at Daily Kos. Things are not "black and white" in real life and there is a lot of disagreement on the shades of gray. Much of how we as individuals initially process information depends on our background and perspective of life. And what many on both sides fail to realize is that just because something initially shows up to you as racist/not racist does not mean that it absolutely is or is not actually racist. It requires thought and analysis in many cases to make a fair judgement. Unfortunately, there are a number of folks here who think their initial take on things is absolute reality and anyone who holds a differing opinion is wrong. Also unfortunately, many of these folks claim to be the sole arbiters of what is and is not racist - this was the position of princss6 when I tried to have this discussion with her. I was not qualified to have an opinion about racism because I'm white. Only black people have enough sensitivity to racism to make that judgement. This is a position which I wholeheartedly reject. It is also at the core of the present standoff at DailyKos. What is racist and who gets to say?
---------------------------------------------------------
If princss6's view is correct and I am wrong then there is a big problem. If I as a white guy am not qualified to make the determination of whether a statement is or is not racist then how can I possibly be responsible for making racist statements? I may make them, but how can I be held responsible for it since I was clueless as to the racist nature? In fact, how can I even participate here without inadvertently dropping racist shit everywhere due to my ignorance? If I am not qualified to determine if something I'm about to write is racist then how can I write ANYTHING without risking being called a racist? This is a big part of why I reject her view on this matter. It is also a big part of the problem here. Charges of widespread racism are being made by a small group of people dedicated to finding racism everywhere. And they consider the rejection of their interpretation to itself be racist ... I wish I knew how to heal this rift but I do not.
