Anyone that says the current election isn’t about race is
turning a blind eye to our nation’s most engrained, and supposedly elusive
pandemic. After the election and
following Romeny’s concession speech the number of “white shame” posts on
Facebook made it very clear that this election wasn’t an issue of race just for
colored people, but one for the Caucasian majority as well.
It seems
this term around; people are more comfortable being vocal about taking sides
based on race. It may be because the American people have become de-sensitized
to having a colored president or because there is a new political beast in
town, a massive group of voters who awoke with the 2008 election – and unlike
popular belief – have yet to go back to sleep.
While the
expected spew of racist remarks comes from southern America (see: racist twitter posts) , there was also no
shortage of “reverse racist” remarks from both coastlines. Interestingly, the
minority celebration has been deemed a form of reverse racism that justifies
the anti-minority backlash. Undoubtedly there were racist remarks from
pro-Obama voters, such as “I voted for Obama cause he balls and Michelle has a
fat ass”, but most are made without mal-intent. The question really comes down to, why can’t
people say “white shame” without criticism when others are priding their own
color just as vocally?
According
to a particular view of sociology however, the very term reverse racism is
racist in of itself. The idea that racism can be reversed without the
historical backdrop that has engrained senses of superiority and inferiority
over generations is quite silly. In a sense, reverse racism cannot be
considered of equal power when equality doesn’t exist in the first place. To
put it simply, unless “whites” are dislocated from their homeland, forced into
labor for generations, and segregated for decades there after can reverse
racism even be a plausible term. According to this way of thought, minorities
have the privilege to praise and pick apart race. They can say white shame on
behalf of whites, but whites can’t say it themselves. It’s a long-time debate
over the unfair advantage minorities have in expressing themselves racially,
whereas whites must be more careful and even fearful of doing the same.
Not willing
to give minorities this one societal privilege, when many are neglected from
the subtle privileges of predominantly Caucasian communities, corporations, and
politics can even be deemed racist in of itself. I personally, haven’t quite
decided how to feel about this way of thought. While to many it seems a rather
extreme justification – I can see the reason. But following this reason seems
like playing eye for an eye, which may not, and probably isn’t, the best way to
progress into a more tolerant and diverse future.
Personally, I think there is only one race, the human race. Many people may call me ignorance because I do not like to talk about people in term of race. For the societal privilege that you talked about, I agree with you that "whites" do not have the same ground to talk about racism as "colored" people. But I think as a minority, if you talk about your race so much, which many minority groups do, that is a sign of racism, which is not toward another group, it shows a separation between people base on race. And I think it is the root of racism.
ReplyDeleteOne reason I think people are more comfortable talking about race this election has something to do Romney and his campaign. Throughout his campaign he marginalized so many minorities that talking about race and under represented groups became a central factor. As you and Si have already stated there is definitely a divide when it comes to “whites” talking about racism, which I think largely comes from the fact that “whites” historically have been the most racist group. I am not quite sure how I feel about this either, because it is not as though whites are not discriminated against, they just have not been discriminated to the same extent. If only more people looked at race the way Si does, we might not need to have a discussion on this topic.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. Noticed the same thing after Obama was re-elected, but I pushed it off on all my friends being stupid. This post reminded me of an old Louis C.K. joke in which he describes how awesome it is to be white. The video is linked below, but to paraphrase, he says: White people can get in a time machine and go back to any point knowing it'll be great when he gets there. But you would only want to go backwards, because white people are going to pay hard for what we've done to other people and we totally deserve it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY
Funny, that having put this post up I would consider Louis C.K. one of my favorite comedians. I think it might be in part because he makes true statements that others are afraid to say so fearlessly. I think what he says in the video definitely helps summarize what I was trying to say about reverse racism. That we cannot call something reverse racism unless, for the next ~three hundred years, minorities make caucasians pay for their historical advantages, and then they still make the same remarks they do today.
ReplyDeleteI think any discussion of race without a discussion of economics is pointless. The reason race relations have been the way they have for so long is because of the desire for and distribution of wealth. That being said, the conversation has been able to shift a bit as a result of an African American male coming into power. While the African American community has by no means achieved economic equality with the white community in general, the idea of a power shift has encouraged people. While the discussion you address is not necessarily positive, it is exciting that the discussion is shifting.
ReplyDelete