It's somewhat jarring to be reading, say, the
Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, and stumble across the following exchange.
In gay conversation over our wine, after supper, he told us, jokingly, that he much admir'd the idea of Sancho Panza, who, when it was proposed to give him a government, requested it might be a government of blacks, as then, if he could not agree with his people, he might sell them. One of his friends, who sat next to me, says, "Franklin, why do you continue to side with these damn'd Quakers? Had not you better sell them? The proprietor would give you a good price."
"The governor," says I, "has not yet blacked them enough." He, indeed, had labored hard to blacken the Assembly in all his messages, but they wip'd off his coloring as fast as he laid it on, and plac'd it, in return, thick upon his own face; so that, finding he was likely to be negrofied himself, he, as well as Mr. Hamilton, grew tir'd of the contest, and quitted the government.
This is not to say that Benjamin Franklin was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, just that he was no more racist than other white people of the time.
People occasionally complain that the meaning of words has changed over time. But it's not just words, it's attitudes that evolve, as well. Ideas and terms that used to be completely acceptable are now things that you want to avoid.
But because it's hard to argue that racism
doesn't exist, the right-wing now has to hide, disguise, and lie about their own bigotry in order to keep pushing us boldly backwards into the 19th Century.
Now, you should understand that I'm not trying to claim that all Republicans are racist. But when you're fishing for trout, you go to a river, not a sandbox.
It’s funny how often the right wing has to apologize for calling Obama "
tar baby" or "
boy, but for some reason, they
keep using those very same terms. Why is that?
The answer, of course, is that it’s all about "dog whistle terminology" – the simple stereotypes that racists prefer; terms that they can slip into conversation or speeches to alert
other racists that they've found a "fellow traveler."
Our friends at World Net Daily are fond of the stereotype of Obama
as lazy. Last week, WND publisher Joseph Farah
wrote a column where he said "You won't hear me complain that Obama is taking his 17th vacation in the last two-and-half years... We should be grateful the man has no work ethic. Just imagine the damage he would have done to the country if he did."
That's just another example of the Republican Party’s badly-hidden language of racism. Because, in reality, we know how lazy Obama is, right?
I really should have known better, but for about an hour on the day that Obama won the election I thought that perhaps we were on the verge of stepping off into a new, post racial era. Then I read a few comments on the Internet in which Barack Obama was referred to by the n-word and I knew that it was business as usual. Then there was the ape imagery used to describe Michelle Obama and we were off to the "race" track.
ReplyDeleteYou nail it Nameless, there is just way too much repeat mileage gotten out of racist imagery to pretend that anyone disturbed by this racism just doesn't have a sense of humor.
I appreciate your honest and clear-eyed evaluation and I love your summation of the assertion that always makes me want to slap the speaker: Incidentally, please stop saying "I can't be racist! I have black friends!" That's not an excuse - that's an old joke. It is indeed an old joke and a tired one.
Nameless,
ReplyDeleteWell said. The Atwater quotation is priceless – in my view, what it alludes to isn't only disparagement and contempt, bad as those things are, it's a desire to do material harm to others because of their race. It's hate just waiting to leap into action. To be fair, the part of the Lamis interview after what you quote runs, "And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that." Atwater may not be "saying that," and he isn't admitting that it’s the way he himself feels, but to me, the general implication is clear that we are dealing with some mighty sadistic bastards who take pleasure in the suffering of their fellow human beings. Even a lot of Republican politicians who may not feel this way in their own right obviously see no shame in courting a significant voting block that does. The history of GOP presidential primaries and even general campaigns suggests as much. The "Southern Strategy" has been operative ever since Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the racists had to move over to the Republican Party, and it's as alive today as ever, as the Culture of Obama Hate indicates beyond any reasonable doubt. As for the stable of right-wing "commentators" goes, they're part of that culture of hate and derision, and I suspect they know exactly what's being peddled, even if the idiots who watch them take it as "news" and "legitimate debate."
It's all part of the culture of fear that the GOP wants to foment. We have to fear whoever the enemy of the moment is, whether it's Muslims ("Sharia Law will take over America if we let it!"), homosexuals ("The Homosexual Agenda will destroy marriage as we know it!"), atheists (see previous comment, insert "War on Christmas"), and, of course, blacks.
ReplyDeleteEvery enemy wants to destroy the country, bring down the government, marry our daughters and pervert our sons, rape our dogs, and dismantle every trace of life as we know it.
After you watch it for just a little while, it starts to get ridiculous, but America has no memory that lasts longer than the current TV season, so they can't seem to remember the resounding fizzle of the last "Threat to All Life" that was waved around.
Nameless,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this. We need to keep this in front of everyone and remind people of Dr. King's words:
"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."
I've read too many times on rightwing blogs that we on the left are the ones who bring race into political discussions--this observation by them after hearing Limbaugh refer to a new cookie being marketed as the "Or-Bam-eo" cookie. That particular windbag, the hero of the rightwing, has a sorry record of racist remarks--going back to his early days on the radio when he told a call-in listener to "take the bone out of his nose."
Yet his admiring listeners stay loyal to him. The only explanation can be that they enjoy and wallow in the toxic racism he serves up.
I'm reading a book about the reconstruction era and a bit thereafter and it's striking to see the origins of what's going on today. So little has changed except that the violence isn't so overt.
ReplyDelete“The right-wing efforts to keep race in the forefront of what we laughingly call "people's minds" take a relatively predictable course.”
ReplyDeleteThank you, Nameless. Yes, we need to talk about racism and all forms of bigotry, and, yes, it always seems to take a predicable course. I sometimes think, however, whenever the subject is raised, our responses also take a “predictable course”…. the naming of culprits, a recap of weasel words and their insidious meanings, followed by the predictable condemnations. As you point out, public shaming of the racist never stops the racism.
Yet, my instinct tells me that dog whistle politics (notwithstanding the politicians who are later forced to apologize for their remarks) confer benefits that justify the political risks, i.e., some exchange of short-term shame for long-term gain. Does anyone see this paradox? Any working theories?
In previous discussions on racism, I have mentioned “atomization,” a term first used by Noam Chomsky. Dog whistle politics is a form of atomization, and its purpose is to divide a large and cohesive voting bloc into smaller factions, literally a “divide and conquer” strategy.
A hypothetical application of atomization: Budget deficits and sovereign debt. What does this issue have to do with racism, you ask?
An overwhelming majority of the electorate wants to preserve Medicare and Social Security … more than 82%, a majority that includes black voters and white voters alike. However, if you are a right-wing Republican hell bent on dismantling the social safety net, how do you divide and conquer this overwhelming majority? By playing the race card, of course! By stirring social resentments that turn one voting group against another (although both voting groups share the same economic interest). When large cohesive voting blocs are divided by dog whistle politics, they no longer talk to each other, compare notes, or vote their common interests. That is how right-wingers stir up the village idiots, then sneak around from behind and steal their wallets.
Do any of you buy this theory?
Ooh... a Chomsky mention..! How about how the media, especially but not exclusive to, Faux News fits the propaganda model..? As to the dog whistle politics of the right, who is to say that it doesn't attract the attention of those on the left..? They aren't in a sandbox either and since you are looking for trout, they have fins and looks like the fish as well..!
ReplyDeleteBig Mark,
ReplyDeleteI can see how my comment (above) may have been misinterpreted as an attempt to recast racism as a euphemism for “rough and tumble politics.” It is not my intention to dismiss or redefine racism. Nor am I am dismissive of racism from the left, whether intentional or unintentional. I have not forgotten the dumb gaffes of Joe Biden and Harry Reid, or Bill Clinton’s clumsy attempt to rescue Hillary’s campaign.
Another term for “dog whistle” politics is “wedge issue” politics, the focus my comment. Let’s face facts: The GOP has used all forms of bias … racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, sexism, and anti-Hispanic hysteria … to win elections. My purpose here is to dissect and understand wedge politics to counteract it, certainly not to make excuses for it.
I will give you props for giving a more cogent version of the "dog whistle" theory, but it still doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is if you don't like obama because he is black a white candidate doesn't have to say anything even vaguely racist to get that guy's vote. As long as they are white, they have the racist at "hello" to borrow an old movie cliche.
In other words the dog-whistle theory only works when you have white people opposing other white people, trying to signal to racist white people that they are on their side.
It doesn't work when the person you are opposing is black.
Well, Worthy, your argument would make sense if it was grounded in reality.
ReplyDeleteThis set of code words work to let white politicians tell racist whites "I'm one of you. I support the things you do." It builds community among bigots, much like Bachmann (and Bush before her) told the Religious Right "I'll bring Christ into government," without really letting on to everybody else that they didn't support that whole First Amendment thing.
A. Worthing,
ReplyDeleteWhat you say would be fine except that most likely, a lot of people who respond to the "dog whistle" sort of don't know they're dogs. It's true that no extraordinary effort would be needed for the white chap running against the black chap to get all the racists' votes, but how many people really go around thinking to themselves, "I'm a racist and I'm proud of it"? For the surreptitious or unconscious types, I'm guessing that a more or less sub-audible call to solidarity might have considerable effect.
Capt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteHave you come across W.E.B. DuBois's book on Reconstruction? Still one of the best on the subject, and written under the racist gun, too. Imagine the difficulties of an Af-Am scholar-historian trying to gain access to musty old records in the South. DuBois' work is downright heroic in that regard.
A Worthing: "It doesn't work when the person you are opposing is black."
ReplyDeleteWedge politics doesn't work when ALL folks compare notes and decide that one candidate ... regardless of race ... represents their interests better than the other candidate, which is precisely what happened in 2008 when Obama won a clear victory.