The Obama Campaign - The Orwellian Nightmare

[PepperFritz]

If you look at the litmus test, interracial marriage rates, plus poll results about what people think of interracial marriages, there has been a lot of change in the last twenty years.

The holes in that statement resemble swiss cheese. "Litmus test" is defined as "a test that relies on a single indicator". Are you really suggesting that interracial marriage rates (i.e. "statistics") and "polls" are the most reliable way to measure the nature and degree of racism in America, and the role that such racism may or may not play in American politics? Granted, interracial marriage rates have risen over the past 30 years or so, but they are nowhere near as high as one would expect in a society where pervasive systemic racism no longer exists. And, of course, one must ask the inevitable questions: What statistics and what polls? Conducted by whom? Using what method(s)? And for what purpose?

 

[Mr. Premise]

Yes, I am suggesting that. It goes to the deepest level of who we consider "equal."

If you look at the litmus test, interracial marriage rates, plus poll results about what people think of interracial marriages, there has been a lot of change in the last twenty years.

The holes in that statement resemble swiss cheese. "Litmus test" is defined as "a test that relies on a single indicator". Are you really suggesting that interracial marriage rates (i.e. "statistics") and "polls" are the most reliable way to measure the nature and degree of racism in America, and the role that such racism may or may not play in American politics?

 

[Mr. Premise]

Where did I say that pervasive systematic racism doesn't exist? I said no such thing. I said it has gotten better, that's all. There's a big difference between those two statements.

have[/i] risen over the past 30 years or so, but they are nowhere near as high as one would expect in a society where pervasive systemic racism no longer exists.

 

[Mr. Premise]

To take race out of it, I think we could agree that women understand more about how other women view men than men do, because they talk freely about how they feel about men more when no men are present.

Because white men get to hear other white men talking freely about such things, that's why.

If you look at the litmus test, interracial marriage rates, plus poll results about what people think of interracial marriages, there has been a lot of change in the last twenty years.

I agree that white men hear things that no one would dare to say in front of a minority. Having been in an interracial relationship for the past 16 years has given me a little perspective on racism as well.
Several of my relatives and coworkers have surprised me over the years with their racist notions.

 

[anart]

From your responses, Donald, it looks like a bit of a nerve has been struck.

Because white men get to hear other white men talking freely about such things, that's why.

Why in the would would you think that what 'white men say' about such things is an accurate measure of what really goes on? Seriously - consider the folly of this statement you've made. Not to mention the fact that since you obviously consider yourself above racism (based on your statements here) - that it would follow that the 'white men' you converse with are probably like you.

So there all of you are in your little bubble of 'racism has gotten better' - having never - not for one millisecond in your life - experienced racism or bigotry at all.

It's ludicrous, actually.

It's like stating that you know things are better for Iraqi's because you're a soldier and you hear what soldiers say. What 'white men' say to each other has no bearing on anything other than what 'white men' want to be heard saying to other 'white men' - it is a conversation occurring in a bubble that is wholly unrelated to living with racism/bigotry every single day. That's as far away from the reality of racism and bigotry as one can get.

 

[PepperFritz]

Where did I say that pervasive systematic racism doesn't exist? I said no such thing. I said it has gotten better, that's all. There's a big difference between those two statements.

I apologize, as I did not mean to put words into your mouth. Let's review the exchange in order to clarify what was and wasn't meant:

Iconoclast stated: "There is a snowball's chance in hell that a black man will be elected. racism is so deeply ingrained into the country" [implying that pervasive systemic racism exists in America]

You disagree with Iconoclast, replying: "The race situation has changed a lot in the last twenty years" [implying that pervasive systemic racism either no longer exists or now exists to a much lesser degree than it did]

MetaDjinn disagreed with you, stating: "I don't think it has changed at all" [implying that, based on his experiences, pervasive systemic racism is still going strong in America]

Which you disagreed with, replying "Well, it has changed a lot in the part of the country I live in" You further stated to Anart: "There has been a lot of change in the last twenty years" [implying that you do not share their believe that a pervasive systemic racism still exists in America]

The impression I got from these exchanges is that those disagreeing with your statements about how much racism has "changed" [i.e. decreased?] in America view such "changes" as largely cosmetic and not very substantial or far-reaching in nature -- certainly not to the point that a white man and a black man would be seen as being on a equal footing in an election campaign. And my impression from your statements and replies to them is that you disagree with that point of view, and consider the changes of the last 20 years to be substantial, to the point that racism would not be a serious impediment to a black man's chances in a presidential election.

Would that be an accurate recap? If not, please correct me if I have misconstrued anything.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Well it looks like a nerve has been struck for a lot of people in this discussion, which isn't surprising. The nerve for me is I never like binary, black and white thinking, i.e., either the U.S. is completely and irredeemable racist or it is a utopia of equality and there is no in-between or change of the balance.

What white men say to each other is a reflection of racism. What people say when their guard is let down is an indication, as are rates of interracial marriage and attitudes towards interracial marriages as indicated by polls. Those are not perfect, but they are facts or varying degree of objectivity (again, I don't like binary thinking that says evidence is either 100% objective or 100% subjective) that can be used to discuss these things.

Now, anart, why are you getting so emotional about this?

From your responses, Donald, it looks like a bit of a nerve has been struck.


It's ludicrous, actually.

It's like stating that you know things are better for Iraqi's because you're a soldier and you hear what soldiers say. What 'white men' say to each other has no bearing on anything other than what 'white men' want to be heard saying by other 'white men'. That's as far away from the reality of racism and bigotry as one can get.

 

[Mr. Premise]

So are you saying that there is no empathy at all or that I have none? :)

One can make assertions about these things without being a victim of them. That's why we develop empathy.

From your responses, Donald, it looks like a bit of a nerve has been struck.


So there all of you are in your little bubble of 'racism has gotten better' - having never - not for one millisecond in your life - experienced racism or bigotry at all.

It's ludicrous, actually.

 

[PepperFritz]

To take race out of it, I think we could agree that women understand more about how other women view men than men do, because they talk freely about how they feel about men more when no men are present.

As a woman (and human being), I do not agree with that statement for one second. Most people say what they think the "others" in their conversation group want to hear, for a large variety of reasons and motives. While what some women may say amongst an exlusively-female group of people may be DIFFERENT than what they would say amongst a group of men, I do not in any way expect it to be any more "true" or genuinely reflective of objective reality. As Gurdjieff and Dr. House will tell you, people LIE all the time. While they may tell different lies to different people, they are still LIES.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Yes, that is pretty close to what I was trying to say, with the added statement that these elections are rigged anyway, so they could easily be rigged in favor of a black man, if it is in the interest of those doing the rigging.

I mean do we really think that there is no difference in the level of racism in the United States between 1958 and 2008, for example? I think it would be pretty hard to make that argument. If things have changed in those years, then we could ask the same question about the difference between 1988 and 2008. I moved to the Boston area in 1987, and racism was rampant there, I mean you couldn't escape it in people's comments and actions. I went to a Boston Celtics game and there were no black people there which, coming from Detroit (no racial utopia there!) was astounding. So I wrote a letter to the Boston Globe commenting about that and how many racist comments there were at the game and it actually got published a few weeks later after I forgot I had written it. I started getting threatening hate-filled phone calls and letters in the mail (this was before the internet). In the letter I mentioned that I was from Detroit and everyone assumed I was black. The whole thing was a very useful experience, to say the least.

But the climate in the Boston area really changed in the 1990s. Obviously there is still racism in the U.S., but it is better. Again it doesn't make sense to argue that things don't ever change at all.

I could write a lot about why things have changed in this region and the history of the thing, but there isn't much point, but it is something I have given a lot of thought to for a lot of years, even though I am white. I could be wrong, but I am entitled to make statements about degrees of racism even if I am white.

The impression I got from these exchanges is that those disagreeing with your statements about how much racism has "changed" [i.e. decreased?] in America view such "changes" as largely cosmetic and not very substantial or far-reaching in nature -- certainly not to the point that a white man and a black man would be seen as being on a equal footing in an election campaign. And my impression from your statements and replies to them is that you disagree with that point of view, and consider the changes of the last 20 years to be substantial, to the point that racism would not be a serious impediment to a black man's chances in a presidential election.

Would that be an accurate recap? If not, please correct me if I have misconstrued anything.

 

[anart]

Well it looks like a nerve has been struck for a lot of people in this discussion, which isn't surprising. The nerve for me is I never like binary, black and white thinking, i.e., either the U.S. is completely and irredeemable racist or it is a utopia of equality and there is no in-between or change of the balance.

This is quite telling, since I saw no evidence of binary or black and white thinking. Just because racism is still omnipresent in this country doesn't mean that certain advances have not been made - although it can be easily said that the outward form of racism has changed, not its roots.

It is interesting because you displayed this same rigidity of thinking when discussing vegetarianism a while back. It seems that there are certain topics that you are so identified with (in this case, that you are not a racist and that the part of the country in which you live is not racist) that you have quite a bit of trouble not engaging in black and white thinking - or not projecting it onto a discussion. It also seems that negative comments about 'America' can stir this type of response as well.

What white men say to each other is a reflection of racism. What people say when their guard is let down is an indication, as are rates of interracial marriage and attitudes towards interracial marriages as indicated by polls. Those are not perfect, but they are facts or varying degree of objectivity (again, I don't like binary thinking that says evidence is either 100% objective or 100% subjective) that can be used to discuss these things.

No one ever said that these things can't be considered as data points - what was said is that you using them as proof - which is what you were doing - is inadequate at best. Can you consider that your perspective on this is not objective because some part of you is identified with 'America not being as racist as it was' - especially the 'part of American in which you live' - and most especially among you and your white male friends? Can you consider, for just a moment, that this identification you are evidencing is skewing your viewpoint just a bit?

Now, anart, why are you getting so emotional about this?

I'm not emotional about it at all, actually - perhaps you are projecting a bit? I just find it fascinating when this rigidity of thought presents itself. What you've written here today indicates that you are identified with certain aspects of Americana that you think exist - when the fact of the matter is that reality is not how you perceive it at all.

 

[PepperFritz]

I never like binary, black and white thinking, i.e., either the U.S. is completely and irredeemable racist or it is a utopia of equality and there is no in-between or change of the balance.

I have not perceived anyone in this thread taking EITHER of those positions. As far as I can see, the discussion is about the NATURE and EXTENT of the "change" that has taken place -- i.e. is it largely cosmetic and superficial in nature, or is it truly substantial? One cannot strive for real change if one is duped into believing that the change has already been made.

What people say when their guard is let down is an indication....

It is only an indication that the audience has changed. People must be awake and self-aware to speak truthfully and objectively, no matter who they happen to be speaking to.

...as are rates of interracial marriage....

Well, setting aside for the moment the issue of "lies, damned lies, and statistics", the very highest rate of interracial marriages in the U.S. that I can find is 7%, and the lowest is around 2%, compared with 1% and less-than1% in 1970. Let's say the highest rate is accurate: You genuinely believe that a society in which only 7% of couples are interracial is not one that is inherently racist in nature?

...and attitudes towards interracial marriages as indicated by polls. Those are not perfect, but they are facts or varying degree of objectivity....

Facts? Objectivity? Why do you think most people would answer pollters truthfully and objectively, when they lie in every other area of their life? Polls are a useless toll for measuring objective reality.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Are you saying there is no emotional reaction on your part? If so, you might want to examine the language you use.

I am not basing this on "my white male friends." I just brought that up as an additional data point. I also base it on what my non-white friends say and on what I observe. Nor was I using ANYTHING as proof. Just as evidence. I never said I proved anything. Do you think you may be projecting some rigidity here Anart. Are there any personal reasons on your part for your reaction here? I really don't believe that you are not being emotional here.

I really am not identified with any vision of "americana." That is really silly. I do object to blanket statements not backed up by facts and evidence, and no one has come up with any facts or evidence that things haven't gotten better as far as race is concerned. I really am open to them. There is no identification with americana here, other things have gotten worse in those years.

And you didn't answer my point about empathy. Can white men have no right to say anything on the topic of racism. We all have limited experience and I am open to hearing other experiences here. You, anart, haven't offered any, not that you have to.

Maybe I am not communicating well, but I don't understand the reaction to what I have written. There does seem to be an intensity to it, do you not think so? Or is the intensity only on my side? Is there REALLY none on your side?

Well it looks like a nerve has been struck for a lot of people in this discussion, which isn't surprising. The nerve for me is I never like binary, black and white thinking, i.e., either the U.S. is completely and irredeemable racist or it is a utopia of equality and there is no in-between or change of the balance.

This is quite telling, since I saw no evidence of binary or black and white thinking. Just because racism is still omnipresent in this country doesn't mean that certain advances have not been made - although it can be easily said that the outward form of racism has changed, not its roots.

It is interesting because you displayed this same rigidity of thinking when discussing vegetarianism a while back. It seems that there are certain topics that you are so identified with (in this case, that you are not a racist and that the part of the country in which you live is not racist) that you have quite a bit of trouble not engaging in black and white thinking - or not projecting it onto a discussion. It also seems that negative comments about 'America' can stir this type of response as well.

What white men say to each other is a reflection of racism. What people say when their guard is let down is an indication, as are rates of interracial marriage and attitudes towards interracial marriages as indicated by polls. Those are not perfect, but they are facts or varying degree of objectivity (again, I don't like binary thinking that says evidence is either 100% objective or 100% subjective) that can be used to discuss these things.

No one ever said that these things can't be considered as data points - what was said is that you using them as proof - which is what you were doing - is inadequate at best. Can you consider that your perspective on this is not objective because some part of you is identified with 'America not being as racist as it was' - especially the 'part of American in which you live' - and most especially among you and your white male friends? Can you consider, for just a moment, that this identification you are evidencing is skewing your viewpoint just a bit?

Now, anart, why are you getting so emotional about this?

I'm not emotional about it at all, actually - perhaps you are projecting a bit? I just find it fascinating when this rigidity of thought presents itself. What you've written here today indicates that you are identified with certain aspects of Americana that you think exist - when the fact of the matter is that reality is very likely not how you perceive it at all.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Good points, and again, I have NEVER said, nor do I believe that there is not inherent racism. 7% definitely means inherent racism, but 7% is seven times 1% so I do think things have changed and the changes are not just cosmetic, but I could be wrong.

I think the question we would have to answer here to move forward is how would we define a cosmetic change. I am not sure. Could it be whether things could go back the other way? To say cosmetic means that it isn't significant it only covers up the same thing underneath. That could well be true when it comes to racism, but that would need to be explained a little futher I think.

I never like binary, black and white thinking, i.e., either the U.S. is completely and irredeemable racist or it is a utopia of equality and there is no in-between or change of the balance.

I have not perceived anyone in this thread taking EITHER of those positions. As far as I can see, the discussion is about the NATURE and EXTENT of the "change" that has taken place -- i.e. is it largely cosmetic and superficial in nature, or is it truly substantial? One cannot strive for real change if one is duped into believing that the change has already been made.

What people say when their guard is let down is an indication....

It is only an indication that the audience has changed. People must be awake and self-aware to speak truthfully and objectively, no matter who they happen to be speaking to.

...as are rates of interracial marriage....

Well, setting aside for the moment the issue of "lies, damned lies, and statistics", the very highest rate of interracial marriages in the U.S. that I can find is 7%, and the lowest is around 2%, compared with 1% and less-than1% in 1970. Let's say the highest rate is accurate: You genuinely believe that a society in which only 7% of couples are interracial is not one that is inherently racist in nature?

...and attitudes towards interracial marriages as indicated by polls. Those are not perfect, but they are facts or varying degree of objectivity....

Facts? Objectivity? Why do you think most people would answer pollters truthfully and objectively, when they lie in every other area of their life? Polls are a useless toll for measuring objective reality.

 

[Mr. Premise]

That's true, but I do think that these polls can be used comparatively (and very carefully). By comparatively I mean that the same polll questions taken in 1978 compared to 2008, say, assuming that the rate of lying to pollsters is roughly the same.

They also would have to be supplemented by a lot of other evidence. You couldn't pin a whole argument on that alone, but I think the other evidence is there as well, residential segregation rates, employment patterns, etc.

I mean, no evidence is perfectly objective, so we need to assemble all the evidence we can with an open mind.

But, again, I am not sure what evidence would show that the changes are merely cosmetic and the underlying situation is the same.

...and attitudes towards interracial marriages as indicated by polls. Those are not perfect, but they are facts or varying degree of objectivity....

Facts? Objectivity? Why do you think most people would answer pollters truthfully and objectively, when they lie in every other area of their life? Polls are a useless toll for measuring objective reality.