There has been an ongoing debate for a few months now over whether the teabagger movement is racist or not. I have submitted that it is and so have many others, but the teabaggers themselves vehemently deny this. I am not surprised by this denial. The charge of racism is very serious, and if widely believed, could spell the end of the movement.
A recent study led by Professor Christopher Parker of the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality sheds a little more light on the subject, and it doesn't look good for the teabaggers (see above chart). Among other things, they surveyed people on racial questions and those who believe strongly in the teabagger movement had significantly more racist attitudes. Consider the following four beliefs of strong teabagger supporters:
*88% said other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up, and Blacks should do the same (compared to 70% of all whites).
*72% disagreed that generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class (compared to 58% of all whites).
*83% disagreed that blacks have gotten less than they deserved over the last few years (compared with 72% of all whites).
*73% said if blacks would just try harder they could be just as well off as whites (compared to 56% of all whites).
The above numbers make it clear that although the movement is not 100% racist, it is mostly racist. Between 72% and 88% of teabaggers hold racist views (that's at least three out of every four people who strongly support the teabagger movement). I'm sure many of these people do not consider themselves to be racists. They think if they are not vocally or actively working to harm blacks then they are not racists. I disagree. Anyone who holds the above views are racist and contribute to the racial problems in this country.
Those few (and they are very few) non-racists in the teabagger movement should disassociate themselves from the movement before they are tarred with the brush of racism themselves. There are many other conservative groups they could join that are not nearly as racist. But as long as they remain in a group where three out of four members are racists, it simply doesn't make sense for them to be sensitive about the group being labeled as racist (and them too, by association). As the old saying goes, if you lie with dogs you get up with fleas.
I must also admit that I am very disappointed with the figures relating to all whites. It just goes to show that we do not live in a post-racial America -- far from it. Although we have passed a few laws, and taken a few steps down the road toward equality, far too many whites still hold racist views.
Professor Parker admits that the numbers for all whites might be a little too high, since the surveyed group only contained 20% of people who identified themselves as liberal (and those skeptical of teabagger politics did have much lower numbers) . Even if that is true and the numbers for all whites are actually a little lower, the numbers are still way too high.
Some people think the civil rights laws of the sixties did away with racism, but that is laughable. The laws were just a result of what was in people's hearts and minds, and these numbers show there are many who still harbor those racist views in their hearts and minds in spite of the civil rights laws.
Maybe things will get better after all of us old farts die off. I hope so. If does seem that the younger generation is more accepting of minorities (of all kinds). But that is just a hope for the future. The reality is that today America is still a very racist country, and that should be unacceptable to all decent people.
"88% said other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up, and Blacks should do the same (compared to 70% of all whites)."
ReplyDeleteHow is this racist? Implicit in the idea that "Blacks should do the same" is that belief that "Blacks can do the same."
Do you think that "other minorities" are somehow superior to Blacks, and Blacks (by virtue of their race alone) are simply incapable of overcoming prejudice and working their way up without the government's paternalistic help?
That sounds far more racist to me.
Believing something doesn't make it true. You're overlooking hundreds of years of slavery and many years of Jim Crow. Those other minorities never had to contend with that. Then there's the centuries of lies about white superiority.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying you agree with that 88% of teabaggers, CT?
Read the actual question, Ted:
ReplyDelete"Irish, Italians, Jewish and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without special favors."
It's a loaded question. Who in their right mind would say that any minority should be afforded "special favors"? The implication is that Blacks are so inferior that they can't make it without that kind of "special" help. If I were African-American, I'd be insulted by that kind of patronizing attitude.
The operative word is "should."
If a person is discriminated against because of race, there are laws to address that. But in the absence of that kind of overt discrimination, everyone "should" overcome prejudice and work their way up on their own. Giving one group "special favors" merely perpetuates the stereotype that they can't make it on their own.
Ted, do you think Blacks should receive "special favors"? Do you think they need them by virtue of their race?
Short answer - YES.
ReplyDeleteI ask again, do you agree with the racist view of the 88%?
Ted, I've been posting here long enough for you to know full well that I hate racism in all its forms.
ReplyDeleteBut not just racism - I hate any form of prejudice, whether it's based on race, national origin, religion or political persuasion.
To me, prejudice is starting with a preconceived idea about a group of people and then trying to force reality into that framework absent of any factual basis.
You tipped your hand concerning your own prejudice when said that "[t]he reality is that today America is still a very racist country." [Emphasis added]
Does this country have an horrible past in the area of race, not only in terms of slavery and Jim Crow, but also in our treatment of Native Americans? Absolutely! Does racism still exist in this country? Without a doubt!
But in my lifetime (60 years), I've seen this country go from segregation, lynchings, and disenfranchisement to an unprecedented number of Blacks attending integrated colleges and entering every profession open to Whites. I've seen scores of citizens (who a generation earlier would have been denied the vote on account of their race) elected to public offices from mayors of major cities all the way to the highest office in the land. I've seen two African-Americans appointed to the same Supreme Court that hardly a century before declared those same jurists to be three-fifths of a person. There's still plenty of room for improvement, but a "very racist country"? Today?
As a citizen of these United States of America who proudly served twenty years in the integrated armed forces of his country, I deeply resent the insinuation that I would do so for a "very racist" country.
In a word, Ted, you're prejudice --against Americans.
But that's not you're only prejudice.
"Those few (and they are very few) non-racists in the teabagger movement should disassociate themselves from the movement before they are tarred with the brush of racism themselves."
You reached this conclusion based on what? A few signs, a handful of people at the Capitol building that may have shouted the n-word? You attended a Tea Party rally, but then left before any of the speakers addressed the group. Why? Were you afraid you might actually hear something that wouldn't support your preconceived ideas? Now you quote a survey, not conducted by a neutral polling group with a proven track record (like Gallup, Zogby or Rasmussen), but the "Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality" (no agenda there, right?).
While we're on the topic of prejudice, just answer me this:
When the first reports came out on the Times Square Bomber that a person of interest was a white man in his 40's, was your first thought, like Mayor Bloomberg, that he was probably politically disgruntled about the new healthcare law?
When you found out that the person apprehended was actually a Muslim originally from Pakistan, were you disappointed, like MSNBC's Contessa Brewer, that he wasn't a "teabagger"?
1. I didn't comment at all on the failed bomber because I had no idea who he was. How would you know what I was thinking if I said nothing?
ReplyDelete2. I am prejudiced against teabaggers.
3. How dare you say I'm prejudiced against Americans. I and all my friends are Americans, and I love this country. I just think it could be a lot better. Do you disagree?
4. I did think I was starting to understand you and didn't think you were racist, but what am I to think when you go to great lengths to protect racists from criticism?
1. You're right; I couldn't know what you were thinking. But your almost hysterial fear of those who care deeply about the economic future of this country led me to believe that you might jump to those conclusions. Thank you for restoring a little of my faith in you.
ReplyDelete2. I certainly believe that! (see my definition of prejudice above).
3. My problem was the way you worded it: "The reality is that today America is still a very racist country." Sudan today is a very racist country. Zimbabwe today is a very racist country. The United States of America today is a country with a very troubled racial past, that fought a civil war to correct those injustices, and has made huge strides forward just in my lifetime alone, with more still to come. Of course I want my country to be even better too. But that doesn't happen by totally ignoring the progress we've already made.
4. I have admitted that there are racist elements within the Tea Party Movement, called out those racists, and will continue to do so. There's no room for racism in any part of this society, let alone a movement that advocates fiscal responsibility. Those are two mutually exclusive issues that have nothing to do with each other.
But I'm not the only one who's gone to great lengths. If the movement was as overhwelmingly racist as you claim it is, there would be a lot more than anecdotal evidence.
I don't know whether this is your motivation (I'd like to think not), but I'm convinced that there are at least some on the Left who realize that out-of-control spending is an issue with traction in the upcoming election, and the only way to defuse it is to discredit those who point it out, not by countering their arguments, but by painting them with the most vile invective possible: racist.
CT argued that the study is flawed. Your only response to his argument was a reference to the allegedly flawed study ("Are you saying you agree with that 88% of teabaggers, CT?"). Additionally, arguing that because 88% of "teabaggers" agree with something, it is wrong, is absurd. I bet at least that many would agree with your statement, "...I love this country. I just think it could be a lot better." I suppose that makes you a racist?
ReplyDeleteAs to the original study, it consists of vague and ambiguous statements and whether or not those statements could be considered "racist" is debatable. If you're going to argue that a certain group is racist, find something more credible to back it up.