Shades of racism in the least expected places.

[Lyric]

There have been a number of posts bemoaning the potential loss of the Democratic "black vote" if Obama doesn't win the nomination. Why isn't anyone hand-wringing at the thought of losing the Democratic "female vote" if Hillary doesn't get it? You'd think that progressives would be just as frightened of losing a very large chunk of that uber-important female base as they are of losing the uber-important black base. But that doesn't seem to be happening. Doesn't that strike anyone else as odd?

At first I thought it was because not all Democratic women are Hillary supporters. But then again, not all black Democrats are Obama supporters, either. So that can't be the reason. I decided to discuss it with my sociology professor (who also happens to be a civil rights lawyer working for The Innocence Project), and learned that there's a very ugly thing going on. It's called institutional racism, and it exists even within our own progressive, liberal political and social infrastructure.

When the question I raised about why we're so worried about the black vote, but not the female vote, is posed, the unspoken implication is that female Hillary supporters are rational and in-control of themselves enough to know that even if Hillary loses the primary, the Democratic Party is still the best choice to advance their interests, and thus can be counted on to vote rationally. The other, more disturbing, unspoken implication is that black Obama supporters somehow aren't that rational and in-control of themselves, and therefore are considered more likely to revolt if their preferred candidate loses. Do you see what's wrong with this kind of thinking?

Racism isn't always overt and obvious; sometimes the most damaging form of racism is the kind that isn't purposeful. I don't believe that any of the people repeating the things I mentioned above are racist people, but that kind of thinking IS racist--whether it's meant to be or not. There is absolutely no rational reason to think that one group of oppressed people is more likely to vote against their own best interests than another. The only way to make such a claim is to rest it on the institutional racism that exists in the social structure; the disgusting and patently false social meme that black people are more emotionally volatile, less rational, and less able to consider nuance and the longterm-view when choosing who to vote for.

I realize that pointing out evidence of subtle racism within the progressive community isn't going to go over well. However, it's such a monumental disservice to black Democrats that I think it's an important thing to discuss. This isn't about whose candidate is better; it's about the false assumptions that some DU'ers are making about the "black vote", and the racism that underlies those assumptions. It's not about individual voters of whatever race deciding not to vote if their preferred candidate isn't nominated; it's about the toxic idea that an entire subgroup of voters is somehow more likely to revolt if they aren't appeased, while another is assumed to be rational enough that nobody's worried about a widespread revolt from them. It's racism, it's wrong, and progressives should not be perpetuating this slanderous social myth.

Choose your candidate for your own reasons, and defend him/her to the end--but stop making stereotyped, prejudiced assumptions about an entire community of people. Skin color and gender do not affect a person's ability to rationally judge a situation. We are better than this.

[bicentennial_baby]

1. Damn girl...

:applause:

[Lyric]

2. Hey sweetness!

:hug: :loveya:

As you can see, I've been a little disturbed by some of the things I've read here lately. How's you?

[lapfog_1]

3. It's a matter of perceived fairness.

To give the nomination to someone that has won fewer delegates, and will have won fewer votes over all, will be perceived as unfair to the black man... keeping him down, no matter how much better he is than the white man/woman.
That's racist.

How can it be unfair if Hillary doesn't get the nomination?

Hillary didn't win the nomination DESPITE not having as many delegates? That will be "sexist"? Really?
I don't think we lose women voters over this.

[Lyric]

8. I'm not talking about delegates, or trying to predict the future.

Things like this were being said well before DU knew who would get which delegates, and how many. I'm not sure why you quoted the word "sexist", as I didn't mention sexism at all.

But your point doesn't make mine invalid; I'm objecting to the people who assume that black people will cut and run from the party if their candidate doesn't win, and who also assume that other groups (like women) will not. Perceived unfairness is an individual thing, not a race issue--just as many people of other colors/genders/etc. would be able to perceive unfairness and leave in protest, but nobody seems to think that they will. These kind of toxic accusations are being leveled solely at black Democrats, and it's not right.

[lapfog_1]

18. "toxic accusations"

Stating that people who support one candidate over another MIGHT leave the party (or simply not vote) if the candidate they support IS UNFAIRLY denied the nomination? That's a toxic accusation?

When Hillary left the Democratic party (when she endorsed John McCain over Barack Obama), I abandoned any promises made about voting for the nominee. The other negative stuff... OK, didn't make me like her, but I would vote for her over McCain... but the number of times that she has compared McCain favorably to Obama... well, in my mind, it's really not that different than Zell Miller. Or Joe Lieberman. So yeah, I'm not voting for her in the GE. Period. Just like I wouldn't vote for Lieberman if HE was the nominee. Read Gary Hart on the subject.

So, should Obama enter the convention with more (about 160 more) pledged delegates than Hillary, and she wins the nomination anyway (by convincing the Supers), yeah, I EXPECT a lot of people that have been very active this campaign cycle to not vote. This is what's meant by "split the party". A significant number of them will be black. It's not a toxic accusation, it's a reality.

A toxic accusation would be "Black voters will stay home if OBama is not the nominee because Hillary has more pledged delegates than he does and wins the nomination".

I don't know if women will abandon the party if their candidate isn't the nominee. I hope not. The rules were the same for both candidates. For those that whine about "Wyoming has many fewer voters per delegate" and so on... Hillary had just the same opportunity to win Wyoming as Obama. She chose to compete in "bigger states", but that was a campaign strategy choice, there certainly aren't any demographic reasons for Obama to win Wyoming... it's not the states huge population of African Americans that put him over the top. However, if women as a block abandon the party because Hillary didn't win... I don't know what to say. I hope it's not the case.

Which brings me back to MY point. Fairness.

If voters abandon the party this fall it's because they will believe that the process was unfair, not because they are African American or women... at least I hope that's the reason.

[stillcool]

26. Perhaps that discussion

should wait until Hillary actually has a higher popular vote count, and a higher delegate count?


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

States that Obama has won...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/...
Alabama
Alaska
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Nevada
North Dakota
South Carolina
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
+Democrats abroad

states that were tied
New Hampshire
Missouri
Texas
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

Delegate Count (2,025 Needed to Win)
Obama-1588
Clinton-1465

[lapfog_1]

28. please reread my post

and allow for the fact that I used a number of double negatives... and a bit of :sarcasm: (without the tag).

It will only be unfair if the candidate with the majority of pledged delegates (even a majority of "1") is not the nominee. Whoever that candidate is.

And I don't care about popular vote totals. That may provide a refuge for those who want to think of the process as "unfair" but popular vote doesn't count for squat. In fact, the popular vote shouldn't even have been reported on state by state basis, only delegates. Popular vote doesn't count for the nationwide presidential race, nor does it matter for the nomination process. Those are the rules. Don't like the rules then change them... but those are the rules in effect for this go-round. Same is true for the FL and MI delegations. Rules were set, punishments were agreed to in advance. The rules were broken, the the punishment applied. Too F'ing bad. Don't like it, then change the rules or the rule makers/enforcers. Next time.

[stillcool]

34. Thanks. I re-read your post...

To give the nomination to someone that has won fewer delegates, and will have won fewer votes over all, will be perceived as unfair to the black man... keeping him down, no matter how much better he is than the white man/woman.

and I totally didn't get it. Thanks for the clarification.

[Swamp Rat]

4. Great post, and may I add that gender bias against women is also inherent in our greater

social system, and embedded in our institutions. It, too, is not always overt and obvious.

[grantcart]

5. who would have thought that having an African American presidential candidate

repeatingly shouting mother******* would have ever been considered funny.


I don't mind them attacing our candidates but last night's SNL skit had a subtle racist and sexist undertow.

[Lyric]

9. I don't have cable and didn't see it, but

if it was racist or sexist, you should write to the producers and give them nine kinds of liberal hell.

[sniffa]

6. Great post, and spot on

K&R

:hi:

[JDPriestly]

7. Is it sexist for a woman (or man) to support a woman because

women have had it so hard or because it is time for a woman to be president or
because the voter herself is a woman or
because a woman "will do a better job" because she is a woman or
because a woman can represent the U.S. better in the world or
because we have never had a woman president and it's time or
because the voter fears that women will not vote or will vote for the opposition if the woman is not the candidate?

Is it racist for a person of color (whatever label you prefer for a person who is not "white") to support a person of color
because people of color have had it so hard or
because it is time for a non-white to be president or
because the voter is not white or
because a person of color will do a better job or
because a person of color can represent the U.S. better in the world or
because we have never had a person of color as president and it's time or
because the voter fears that non-whites will not vote or will vote for the opposition if the person of color is not the candidate?

I've heard people give all these reasons for supporting Hillary or Obama. I call it sexism and racism, but I realize other people may disagree with me. I think some of the emotionality of some of the supporters of each of these candidates is due quite simply to sexism and racism. Sure, the emotional supporters will recite a list of other rational reasons for so adamantly supporting their candidate -- like, I like her/his policies, but the extreme emotional attachment is due to this sexist or racist feelings.

Now, it is a different matter if you like the candidate but don't like something positive the candidate said about the probable Republican candidate or you fear that damaging information about the candidate's ties to a scandal will emerge sometime in October. Those concerns may or may not have their ultimate source in a desire to prefer the other candidate based on gender or race. My point is that racism and sexism can have many faces. Sometimes they are expressed not as a repulsion or negative feeling but rather as a positive feeling -- a kind of misogynism if you will.

[Lyric]

12. I think it's hard to criticize people who vote due to feelings of oppression.

It's their vote and their right, and who are we to judge?

I do object strongly to people *outside* of oppressed groups, who claim to be able to predict what a group will do based on the kind of institutional prejudice I spoke of earlier. It often comes from the very people who support the black candidate/female candidate, which makes it all the more sad when it happens. Whenever I see it, all I can think is that, "These people seem to think that black voters have the emotional intelligence of angry teenagers." Truly that is NOT the case, and I'm sure most people would be horrified if they consciously realized the implications of what they said. That's why I wanted to point it out--perhaps it will help improve the tone around here.

As for me, I've decided that I'm working for and supporting whoever gets the nomination, and I'm going to try and stay away from the negative threads, because I dislike being angry all the time.

[CitizenLeft]

30. okay...

I read your post again. I DO apologize, if you saw what I said. I'm an African-American, and I read you fast and wrong, and saw something different.

Holy smokes, this whole topic is getting on my nerves.

[Scurrilous]

10. K & R

:thumbsup:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

11. The Only Candidate Whose Campaign is Using Race or Sex as an Explanation for Not Winning

...... is the Clinton campaign.

[Lyric]

14. That may or may not be true: I don't know.

But I'm talking about the folks right here at DU, not somebody's campaign. Neither campaign is interested in what I have to say, but maybe some DU'ers might be.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

17. Ok..... Let Me Rephrase

The only DU supporters using race or sex as an explanation for not winning are Clinton DU supporters....not all........but many.

[Lyric]

21. It actually comes from both sides.

I replied to a thread just the other day that came from an Obama supporter who claimed that black people would leave if Obama didn't win the nomination.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4899283

[fightthegoodfightnow]

22. Perhaps

.........but I've seen it far more often with DU Clinton supporters.

[BumRushDaShow]

13. The problem is the meme of gender and race politics.

This needs to end. It is dirty politicking and is sad. There are so many barriers that have been broached during this election cycle and to have those "leaders" within your own party bring this crap up because of a close race, is a disgrace.

[Lyric]

15. I agree. Gender and race should not be issues.

I'd love nothing more than to see the two sides back down and jack up the respect level.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

20. And Yet.......

..... the only side of the debate in DU land using race or sex as a reason for not winning is the Clinton campaign.

I'm sooo tired of hearing how sexist I am merely because I support, for the time, Obama.

Makes me wonder whether or not I should even consider Clinton should she win the nomination.

And please don't tell me that Billary did something to further women's rights when her husband became her voice in South Carolina.

It really was a huge disappointment for me and quite frankly was the beginning of the end of my love fest for the Clintons.

[greyghost]

16. Well said.

[BenDavid]

19. Well written and your advice is spot on.....but WHO gained power

by splitting the party and getting Democrats to fight Democrats? Obama! Obama and the campaign's strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed HRC and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters.
A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters. HRC and her campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so.

the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the "race-baiter card" before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign.

[ellacott]

25. This was an excellent conversation until you came in with this stuff you keep pushing

You have personal issues and can not rationally discuss this subject. It is very sad because you would be so enlightened if you would only open your eyes and your mind.

What you continually post is such an insult to blacks and the sad thing is you don't even realize it. What you are trying to claim is that blacks are too dumb to make a determination on whether they were offended by any actions that occurred. People were offended by some of the remarks made long before it blew up with Hillary's clumsy statement on MLK and LBJ. You think we are so stupid that if Obama said it then we will blindly believe it. You think we can't speak for ourselves and are not able to process information unless someone tells us. This is so insulting and goes to the point that the OP was making regarding her professor.

You draw conclusions that fit into your limited perspective and have convinced yourself that it is true.

This is why you hear that many blacks will not vote for HRC if it appears that the nominating process was not fair.

To say, as the professor did that we are not rational and are overly emotional definitely is racist. There doesn't seem to be a concern why emotions may be high regarding the outcome of this electoral process.

As far as voting against our best interests, sometimes it feels like neither side is actually concerned about our best interests. It's been said that the Democrats take us for granted and the Republicans ignore us.

**I apologize to the OP for if I sounded harsh but it's hard to continually read the posts of this person who wants to lay his issues at the feet of blacks and refuses to do some introspection.**

[Lyric]

29. No need to apologize ellacott

Although I'm not black, some of my immediate family members are, and I've witnessed too many times the kind of crap that non-white people take in this country. White privilege is a sickening fact of life, and I've been shocked over and over again at just how many white people refuse to believe that it exists--people I considered "good" people, even friends.

I sometimes wonder if it's ever going to get better. I'd like to see real equality in my lifetime for all people, but I don't think I will, and it just kills me--why is it so hard for people to get over something as irrelevant to human worth as the amount of melanin in someone's skin, or who they choose to be intimate with? I don't understand it. It seems too ridiculous to be real, but there it is.

:hug:

[ellacott]

32. It really is ridiculous and sad

I don't know if we could ever overcome it. I think people need to have a group in which they feel superior to. I guess it's human nature. The Irish, Catholics and Jews have had to deal with a lot prejudice also. They weren't accepted as full citizens by the majority population in America.

I'm going to age myself but there was one episode of the original Star Trek series that I will never forget. The crew encounters 2 humanoids who have been battling each other for 5,000 years. Their native planet had been destroyed and these were the last 2 men from that planet. It turns out the the reason for their hatred and the destruction of their society stemmed from their appearance. One's face was black on the right side and right on the other. The other's face was the opposite. It was a little corny being that it was from the 70's but it did have a message.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0708435/usercomments

If you'd be interested these books might provide some insight into issues of race in this country:

Race: A History Beyond Black and White
Author: Marc Aronson

Black Labor/White Wealth
Author: Claud Anderson

[Lyric]

33. My little boy has a Dr. Suess book that sounds a lot like that episode

It's called the Sneetches, or something like that; one group of "sneetches" have a star on their bellies, and the other does not, and the book is about the relations between the two. It's funny, but very telling.

Thanks for the book recommends; I'll make sure to check them out if the university library has them.

[FrenchieCat]

23. I didn't discuss this with a sociology professor, but here is what I can tell you.....

White women will vote for Barack if he is the nominee, if for no other reason, than to simply protect their right to choose, which is much more important to them and their daughters than staying home or worse yet, voting for McCain on election day, to somehow try to make a point about Hillary. Hillary is just not that powerful a reason for them to lose what they have been fighting to maintain for years now.

The difference in reference to whether Black Folks, at least 50% of them, might stay home if Hillary gets the nomination is stark. One reason is what they have seen what has transpired during this election; that racism appears to be alive in well in their own Democratic party. If one understands that Black folks have consistently remain at the bottom of the totem poll, no matter who was in power (Welfare Reform signed in by Bill Clinton wasn't exactly a gift), it will help one understand that Black folks don't necessarily believe that they have that much to lose in staying home, if Hillary is the nominee....and in fact, will take the hit to send a message to this country that they are sick and tired, and that they aren't gonna take it anymore.

My point is that unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, many Black folks will believe that they can weather the storm, like they always have. On the other hand, White women understand clearly what is at stake in this election, and what is much more compeling to them than staying home or voting McCain, is the thought of losing a large part of the ground that they have gained in matters more important than Hillary Clinton.

[Mags]

31. Sorry FrenchieCat, I'm sure not seeing what you are in the

white women's vote. I am a white woman and have worked very hard for the Dem party in Tenn., when I lived in NJ. and Kentucky. I have attended our Dem women's group once a month for ever it seems. Also keep in touch with those I have met while living in the other states I named above. I have not had but one white woman tell me that she will vote Obama if he gets the nomination.

[Guava Jelly]

24. I love it Green eyes :o)

Great thread K&R

[woolldog]

27. If Obama loses the nomination fair and square

then losing the black vote isn't an issue, for the most part, although many AAs have been turned off by the way Clinton has run her campaign.

The problem for Clinton though is that there is no way for her to win the nomination "fair and square." At this point, the only way for her to win is to steal it. In that case, yes that would alienate a large segment of the democratic party, not just AAs.